The Christ_ A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence John E. Remsburg 1973 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Christ: A Critical
Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of
His Existence

Author: John E. Remsburg

Release date: September 28, 2014 [eBook #46986]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/46986

Credits: Produced by Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net/ for Project
Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously
made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE CHRIST: A
CRITICAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCES OF HIS
EXISTENCE ***

THE
CHRIST
A Critical Review and Analysis of the

Evidences of His Existence

By
JOHN E. REMSBURG

“We must get rid of that Christ.”

—Emerson

New York
THE TRUTH SEEKER COMPANY
Forty-nine Vesey Street.

To My Wife
Nora M. Remsburg
This Volume is Inscribed

Humbly he came,
Veiling his horrible Godhead in the shape
Of man, scorned by the world, his name unheard
Save by the rabble of his native town,
Even as a parish demagogue. He led
The crowd; he taught them justice, truth, and peace,
In semblance; but he lit within their souls
The quenchless flames of zeal, and blessed the sword
He brought on earth to satiate with the blood
Of truth and freedom his malignant soul.
At length his mortal frame was led to death.

I stood beside him; on the torturing cross
No pain assailed his unterrestrial sense;
And yet he groaned. Indignantly I summed
The massacres and miseries which his name
Had sanctioned in my country, and I cried
“Go! Go!” in mockery.

—Shelley.

PREFACE.
“We must get rid of that Christ, we must get rid of that Christ!” So spake
one of the wisest, one of the most lovable of men, Ralph Waldo Emerson.
“If I had my way,” said Thomas Carlyle, “the world would hear a pretty
stern command—Exit Christ.” Since Emerson and Carlyle spoke a
revolution has taken place in the thoughts of men. The more enlightened of
them are now rid of Christ. From their minds he has made his exit. To quote
the words of Prof. Goldwin Smith, “The mighty and supreme Jesus, who
was to transfigure all humanity by his divine wit and grace—this Jesus has
flown.” The supernatural Christ of the New Testament, the god of orthodox
Christianity, is dead. But priestcraft lives and conjures up the ghost of this
dead god to frighten and enslave the masses of mankind. The name of
Christ has caused more persecutions, wars, and miseries than any other
name has caused. The darkest wrongs are still inspired by it. The wails of
anguish that went up from Kishenev, Odessa, and Bialystok still vibrate in
our ears.

Two notable works controverting the divinity of Christ appeared in the last
century, the Leben Jesu of Strauss, and the Vie de Jesus of Renan. Strauss in
his work, one of the masterpieces of Freethought literature, endeavors to
prove, and proves to the satisfaction of a majority of his readers, that Jesus
Christ is a historical myth. This work possesses permanent value, but it was
written for the scholar and not for the general reader. In the German and
Latin versions, and in the admirable English translation of Marian Evans
(George Eliot), the citations from the Gospels—and they are many—are in
Greek.

Renan’s “Life of Jesus,” written in Palestine, has had, especially in its
abridged form, an immense circulation, and has been a potent factor in the
dethronement of Christ. It is a charming book and displays great learning.
But it is a romance, not a biography. The Jesus of Renan, like the Satan of
Milton, while suggested by the Bible, is a modern creation. The warp is to

be found in the Four Gospels, but the woof was spun in the brain of the
brilliant Frenchman. Of this book Renan’s fellow-countryman, Dr. Jules
Soury, thus writes:

“It is to be feared that the beautiful, the ‘divine,’ dream, as he would say,
which the eminent scholar experienced in the very country of the Gospel,
will have the fate of the ‘Joconda’ of Da Vinci, and many of the religious
pictures of Raphael and Michael Angelo. Such dreams are admirable, but
they are bound to fade.... The Jesus who rises up and comes out from those
old Judaizing writings (Synoptics) is truly no idyllic personage, no meek
dreamer, no mild and amiable moralist; on the contrary, he is very much
more of a Jew fanatic, attacking without measure the society of his time, a
narrow and obstinate visionary, a half-lucid thaumaturge, subject to fits of
passion, which caused him to be looked upon as crazy by his own people.
In the eyes of his contemporaries and fellow-countrymen he was all that,
and he is the same in ours.”

Renan himself repudiated to a considerable extent his earlier views
regarding Jesus. When he wrote his work he accepted as authentic the
Gospel of John, and to this Gospel he was indebted largely for the more
admirable traits of his hero. John he subsequently rejected. Mark he
accepted as the oldest and most authentic of the Gospels. Alluding to Mark
he says:

“It cannot be denied that Jesus is portrayed in this gospel not as a meek
moralist worthy of our affection, but as a dreadful magician.”

This volume on “The Christ” was written by one who recognizes in the
Jesus of Strauss and Renan a transitional step, but not the ultimate step,
between orthodox Christianity and radical Freethought. By the Christ is
understood the Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the New
Testament is the Christ of Christianity. The Jesus of the New Testament is a
supernatural being. He is, like the Christ, a myth. He is the Christ myth.
Originally the word Christ, the Greek for the Jewish Messiah, “the
anointed,” meant the office or title of a person, while Jesus was the name of
the person on whom his followers had bestowed this title. Gradually the

title took the place of the name, so that Jesus, Jesus Christ, and Christ
became interchangeable terms—synonyms. Such they are to the Christian
world, and such, by the law of common usage, they are to the secular world.

It may be conceded as possible, and even probable, that a religious
enthusiast of Galilee, named Jesus, was the germ of this mythical Jesus
Christ. But this is an assumption rather than a demonstrated fact. Certain it
is, this person, if he existed, was not a realization of the Perfect Man, as his
admirers claim. There are passages in the Gospels which ascribe to him a
lofty and noble character, but these, for the most part, betray too well their
Pagan origin. The dedication of temples to him and the worship of him by
those who deny his divinity is as irrational as it will prove ephemeral. One
of the most philosophic and one of the most far-seeing minds of Germany,
Dr. Edward von Hartmann, says:

“When liberal Protestantism demands religious reverence for the man Jesus,
it is disgusting and shocking. They cannot themselves believe that the
respect in which Jesus is held by the people and which they have made use
of in such an unprotestant manner, can be maintained for any length of time
after the nimbus of divinity has been destroyed, and they may reflect on the
insufficiency of the momentary subterfuge. The Protestant principle in its
last consequences, disposes of all kinds of dogmatic authority in a
remorseless manner, and its supporters must, whether they like it or not,
dispense with the authority of Christ.”

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. PAGE

Christ’s Real Existence Impossible 13

CHAPTER II.

Silence of Contemporary Writers 24

CHAPTER III.

Christian Evidence 50

CHAPTER IV.

Infancy of Christ 65

CHAPTER V.

Ministry of Christ 120

CHAPTER VI.

Crucifixion of Christ 213

CHAPTER VII.

Resurrection of Christ 296

CHAPTER VIII.

His Character and Teachings 340

CHAPTER IX.

The Christ a Myth 433

CHAPTER X.

Sources of the Christ Myth—Ancient Religions 444

CHAPTER XI.

Sources of the Christ Myth—Pagan Divinities 499

CHAPTER XII.

Sources of the Christ Myth—Conclusion 566

THE CHRIST.

CHAPTER I.

Christ’s Real Existence Impossible.
The reader who accepts as divine the prevailing religion of our land may
consider this criticism on “The Christ” irreverent and unjust. And yet for
man’s true saviors I have no lack of reverence. For him who lives and
labors to uplift his fellow men I have the deepest reverence and respect, and
at the grave of him who upon the altar of immortal truth has sacrificed his
life I would gladly pay the sincere tribute of a mourner’s tears. It is not
against the man Jesus that I write, but against the Christ Jesus of theology; a
being in whose name an Atlantic of innocent blood has been shed; a being
in whose name the whole black catalogue of crime has been exhausted; a
being in whose name five hundred thousand priests are now enlisted to keep

“Truth forever on the scaffold,
Wrong forever on the throne.”

Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose
humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a
possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the
Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.

From the beginning to the end of this Christ’s earthly career he is
represented by his alleged biographers as a supernatural being endowed
with superhuman powers. He is conceived without a natural father: “Now
the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When, as his mother Mary was
espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of
the Holy Ghost” (Matt. i, 18 ).

His ministry is a succession of miracles. With a few loaves and fishes he
feeds a multitude: “And when he had taken the five loaves and the two
fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake the loaves, and gave
them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he
among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up

twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat
of the loaves were about five thousand men” (Mark vi, 41–44 ).

He walks for miles upon the waters of the sea: “And straightway Jesus
constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the
other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the
multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray; and when the
evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of
the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth
watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea” (Matt. xiv,
22–25 ).

He bids a raging tempest cease and it obeys him: “And there arose a great
storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full....
And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still.
And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm” (Mark, iv, 37–39 ).

He withers with a curse the barren fig tree: “And when he saw a fig tree in
the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said
unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee, henceforth, forever. And presently the fig
tree withered away” (Matt. xxi, 19 ).

He casts out devils: “And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a
spirit of an unclean devil.... And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace,
and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he
came out of him and hurt him not” (Luke iv, 33, 35 ).

He cures the incurable: “And as he entered into a certain village, there met
him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off; and they lifted up their
voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them,
he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to
pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed” (Luke xvii, 12–14 ).

He restores to life a widow’s only son: “And when he came nigh to the gate
of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his
mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city were with her.
And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her,

Weep not. And he came and touched the bier; and they that bore him stood
still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead
sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother” (Luke vii,
12–15 ).

He revivifies the decaying corpse of Lazarus: “Then said Jesus unto them
plainly, Lazarus is dead.... Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain
in the grave four days already.... And when he had thus spoken, he cried
with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth”
(John xi, 14–44 ).

At his crucifixion nature is convulsed, and the inanimate dust of the grave is
transformed into living beings who walk the streets of Jerusalem: “Jesus,
when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And,
behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto
many” (Matt. xxvii, 50–53 ).

He rises from the dead: “And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped
it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn
out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and
departed.... And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the
door.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them,
saying, All hail” (Matt. xxvii, 59, 60 ; xxviii, 2, 9 ).

He ascends bodily into heaven: “And he led them out as far as to Bethany,
and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he
blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven” (Luke
xxiv, 50, 51 ).

These and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this so-called
Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of these miracles is to
disprove the existence of this Christ.

Canon Farrar makes this frank admission: “If miracles be incredible,
Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels are
untrustworthy” (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25).

Dean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful denial
of miracles: “The whole system of Christian belief with its evidences, ... all
Christianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has
any special relation to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown”
(Aids to Faith, p. 3).

Dr. Westcott says: “The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it
can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further
inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous” (Gospel of the
Resurrection, p. 34).

A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible and incredible.
To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated truth. The world is governed,
not by chance, not by caprice, not by special providences, but by the laws of
nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher
have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE.
If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they
could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single
suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged
miracles of Christ required a suspension of Nature’s laws; and the
suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible,
and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence
of this supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature of
the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.

Hume’s masterly argument against miracles has never been refuted: “A
miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and unalterable
experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the
very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can
possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable that all men must die;
that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes
wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found

agreeable to the laws of Nature, and there is required a violation of these
laws, or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a
miracle if it ever happens in the common course of Nature. It is no miracle
that a man, seemingly in good health, should die suddenly; because such a
kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently
observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life;
because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must,
therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous event, otherwise
the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform experience
amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of
the fact, against the existence of any miracle” (Essay on Miracles).

Alluding to Christ’s miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of Jesus of
Nazareth, says: “Observation, which has never been once falsified, teaches
us that miracles never happen but in times and countries in which they are
believed, and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever
occurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous
character..... It is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the
name of universal experience, that we banish miracles from history” (Life
of Jesus, p. 29).

Christianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working age.
Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody believed in
miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was a worker of
miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when wrought, in this
atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of exaggeration soon
expanded it into marvelous proportions.

To show more clearly the character of the age which Christ illustrates, let us
take another example, the Pythagorean teacher, Apollonius of Tyana, a
contemporary of the Galilean. According to his biographers—and they are
as worthy of credence as the Evangelists—his career, particularly in the
miraculous events attending it, bore a remarkable resemblance to that of
Christ. Like Christ, he was a divine incarnation; like Christ his miraculous
conception was announced before his birth; like Christ he possessed in
childhood the wisdom of a sage; like Christ he is said to have led a

blameless life; like Christ his moral teachings were declared to be the best
the world had known; like Christ he remained a celibate; like Christ he was
averse to riches; like Christ he purified the religious temples; like Christ he
predicted future events; like Christ he performed miracles, cast out devils,
healed the sick, and restored the dead to life; like Christ he died, rose from
the grave, ascended to heaven, and was worshiped as a god.

The Christian rejects the miraculous in Apollonius because it is incredible;
the Rationalist rejects the miraculous in Christ for the same reason. In proof
of the human character of the religion of Apollonius and the divine
character of that of Christ it may be urged that the former has perished,
while the latter has survived. But this, if it proves anything, proves too
much. If the survival of Christianity proves its divinity, then the survival of
the miracle-attested faiths of Buddhism and Mohammedanism, its powerful
and nourishing rivals, must prove their divinity also. The religion of
Apollonius languished and died because the conditions for its development
were unfavorable; while the religions of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed
lived and thrived because of the propitious circumstances which favored
their development.

With the advancement of knowledge the belief in the supernatural is
disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and her dark sister, Superstition,
know that miracles are myths. In the words of Matthew Arnold, “Miracles
are doomed; they will drop out like fairies and witchcraft, from among the
matter which serious people believe” (Literature and Dogma).

What proved the strength of Christianity in an age of ignorance is proving
its weakness in an age of intelligence. Christian scholars themselves,
recognizing the indefensibility and absurdity of miracles, endeavor to
explain away the difficulties attending their acceptance by affirming that
they are not real, but only apparent, violations of Nature’s laws; thus putting
the miracles of Christ in the same class with those performed by the
jugglers of India and Japan. They resolve the supernatural into the natural,
that the incredible may appear credible. With invincible logic and pitiless
sarcasm Colonel Ingersoll exposes the lameness of this attempt to retain the
shadow of the supernatural when the substance is gone:

“Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. There is but one way
to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural agencies. The
moment you explain a miracle it disappears. You should not depend upon
explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven from the field because
the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. Neither should you be in the least
disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible is not
miraculous.”

Miracles must be dismissed from the domain of fact and relegated to the
realm of fiction. A miracle, I repeat, is impossible. Above all this chief of
miracles, The Christ, is impossible, and does not, and never did, exist.

CHAPTER II.

Silence of Contemporary Writers.
Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a
historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during and
immediately following the time he is said to have existed.

That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this
fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may
be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been
written. E. Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed—
have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary
writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations
afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.

The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or
within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and
performed his wonderful works:

Josephus, Statius,
Philo-Judaeus, Ptolemy,
Seneca, Hermogones,
Pliny the Elder, Valerius Maximus,
Arrian, Appian,
Petronius, Theon of Smyrna,
Dion Pruseus, Phlegon,
Paterculus, Pompon Mela,
Suetonius, Quintius Curtius
Juvenal, Lucian,
Martial, Pausanias,
Persius, Valerius Flaccus,
Plutarch, Florus Lucius,
Justus of Tiberius, Favorinus,

Apollonius, Phaedrus,
Pliny the Younger, Damis,
Tacitus, Aulus Gellius,
Quintilian, Columella,
Lucanus, Dio Chrysostom,
Epictetus, Lysias,
Silius Italicus, Appion of Alexandria.

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to
form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from
two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed
passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of
Jesus Christ.

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until
long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews
covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was
living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian
massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into
Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake,
supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place—when
Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses
ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the
world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It
was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although
this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes
revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was
born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a
time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught.
He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a
generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana,
the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He
mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important

event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian
era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to
merit a line from this historian’s pen.

Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ’s own country, Galilee. He wrote a
history covering the time of Christ’s reputed existence. This work has
perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century,
who was acquainted with it, says: “He [Justus] makes not the least mention
of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the
wonderful works that he did” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33).

Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of
Christ’s earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine is
intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman records of that
age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The Greek writers of
Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from Palestine and who were
familiar with its events, are silent also.

Josephus.

Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The
Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages
down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following
passage:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews,
and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the
cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared
to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these

and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of
Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book XVIII,
Chap. iii, sec. 3).

For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as
a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine
character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.

Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian
writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He
appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”
These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ.
Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith—the last man in
the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this
evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation
succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.) offers the following explanation,
which only a theologian could frame: “If the Jews do not believe us, let
them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a
very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a
manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he
was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to
deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive,
while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his
perfidious intention.”

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and
exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty
robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to
the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of
his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful
things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen
lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an
account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great

slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them
slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end
was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these
words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet
between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is
placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent
of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this
passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers
to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the
failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that
it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian,
Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in
furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and
perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its
presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been
charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the
fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus
introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already
produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be
amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further
witness” (Book III, p. 124).

Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of
Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in
his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too
wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five
hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits
that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery.
Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the
following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus,
which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or
word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned,
and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.

“It interrupts the narrative.

“The language is quite Christian.

“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and
could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning
Josephus.

“Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states
that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of
Christ.

“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens
Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen
against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen
openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not
acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any
Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the
fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would
have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and

Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria,
nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with
the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the
Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony
so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our
Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own
country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would
not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s
Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of
Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude
that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion
of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in
terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid
one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the
style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a
forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious
Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should
have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal
of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to
gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of
Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this
author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of
his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ?
Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in
which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have
been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage
stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with
everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their
controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have

mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first
who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this
writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his
works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his “Lost and Hostile Gospels,” says:

“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist.
Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin
Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl.
A. D. 193), and Origen (fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly
have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with
Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The
silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against
Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and
his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose
writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed,
distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ.
He says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity,
though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history
of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very
striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his “Gibbon’s Rome” (Vol. II, p.
285, note) says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.”

Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned,
repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes
to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the “Encyclopedia
Britannica”: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no
sane critic can believe.”

“There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that
the whole passage is spurious—one that it was unknown to Origen and the
earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain” (Ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus, says: “The passage
cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic
church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth
Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and
after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for
it” (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it “must
have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour.”

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “Flavius Josephus, the well
known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years
after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our
chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his
Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus
himself. At any rate, the passage in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ that refers to
him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand”
(Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is
endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says:
“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles,
having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every
access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

“Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be
silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which
speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of
the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this
passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth
century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious”
(Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

Another passage in Josephus, relating to the younger Ananus, who was high
priest of the Jews in 62 A. D., reads as follows:

“But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high
priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was also of
the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all of
the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus
was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the
Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had
formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them
to be stoned” (Antiquities, Book XX, chap. ix, sec. 1).

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, “who
was called Christ,” which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally
regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It
was originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus
believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of
his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward
incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity
of text was a matter of secondary importance.

The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and
who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ’s existence, do
not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned
Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third
century or later.

Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James
mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus
mentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus
Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were
named Jesus. Jesus, the son of Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high priest
that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later succeeded to the
same office.

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus,
is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that
James the Just died in 69 A. D., seven years after the James of Josephus was
condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.

Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus, referring to the event narrated
by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, “did
not die till long afterward.”

The brief “Discourse Concerning Hades,” appended to the writings of
Josephus, is universally conceded to be the product of some other writer
—“obviously of Christian origin”—says the “Encyclopedia Britannica.”

Tacitus.

In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a
tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary
and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary.
Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in
reference to this:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were
abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he
punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the
reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius
Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out
again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached
the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful,
and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were
apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast
multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so
much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their
executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt.

Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by
dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with
combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus
burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this
occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes
standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other
times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really
criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated
as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but
only to gratify the cruelty of one man” (Annals, Book XV, sec. 44).

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if
not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments
demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.

3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a
compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been
made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no
recognition of them.

4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it
had it existed.

5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the
evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but
makes no mention of Tacitus.

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

7. At this time but one copy of the “Annals” existed, and this copy, it is
claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of
Tacitus.

8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a
forgery was easy.

9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its
Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but
his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless
Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.

10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not
been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings
ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.

11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like
some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to
Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the
fifth century.

13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in
his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should
be sacrificed, “not even those of condemned criminals.”

14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that
Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the “Annals” believe
that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of
Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever
may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the
unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it
disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and
there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be
found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This
sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature.
That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman

historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360
years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.

Pliny the Younger.

This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-
consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his
Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the
following:

“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before
me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they
confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with
punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They
assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to
come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn,
among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by
an oath—not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no
theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had
been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed
it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be
attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it
was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.”

Notwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited by
Tertullian and Eusebius, its genuineness may well be questioned, and for
the following reasons:

1. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman
government tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says:
“Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single
ordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the Pagan
emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines or creeds”

(The Apostles). Gibbon says: “The religious tenets of the Galileans, or
Christians, were never made a subject of punishment, or even of inquiry”
(Rome, Vol. II, p. 215).

2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman emperors.

3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded to have
been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.

4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing, at this time, a
large Christian population, which is improbable.

5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with Christian
beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the supposed
historical fact that the most powerful of primitive churches flourished in
Trajan’s capital and had existed for fifty years.

6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in the habit of
meeting and singing hymns “to Christ as to a god.” The early Christians did
not recognize Christ as a god, and it was not until after the time of Pliny
that he was worshiped as such.

7. “I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a
second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they
persevered I ordered them to be executed.” That this wise and good man
rewarded lying with liberty and truthfulness with death is difficult to
believe.

8. “I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant maids,
who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the
torture.” Never have the person and character of woman been held more
sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the noblest of Romans
should have put to torture young women guiltless of crime is incredible.

9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn obligation “not
to do anything that was wicked; that they would commit no theft, robbery,

or adultery, nor break their word,” etc., looks like an ingenious attempt to
parade the virtues of primitive Christians.

10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient copy of Pliny.

11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately preceding
Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.

12. Some of the best German critics reject it. Gibbon, while not denying its
authenticity, pronounces it a “very curious epistle”; and Dr. Whiston, who
considers it too valuable to discard, applies to its contents such epithets as
“amazing doctrine!” “amazing stupidity!”

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny—these are the disinterested witnesses adduced by
the church to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ; the one writing
nearly one hundred years, the others one hundred and ten years after his
alleged birth; the testimony of two of them self-evident forgeries, and that
of the third a probable forgery.

But even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine, it was not
written until the second century, so that there is not to be found in all the
records of profane history prior to the second century a single allusion to
the reputed founder of Christianity.

To these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth, Suetonius, a
Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the second century. In
his “Life of Nero,” Suetonius says: “The Christians, a race of men of a new
and villainous superstition, were punished.” In his “Life of Claudius,” he
says: “He [Claudius] drove the Jews, who at the instigation of Chrestus
were constantly rioting, out of Rome.” Of course no candid Christian will
contend that Christ was inciting Jewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he
was crucified at Jerusalem.

Significant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers named in
this chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ’s existence. Had this
wonderful being really existed the earth would have resounded with his
fame. His mighty deeds would have engrossed every historian’s pen. The

pages of other writers would have abounded with references to him. Think
of going through the literature of the nineteenth century and searching in
vain for the name of Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon was a pigmy and
his deeds trifles compared with this Christ and the deeds he is said to have
performed.

With withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: “But how shall we
excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those
evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their
reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of
their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by
innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were
healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature
were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of
Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the
ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any
alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the
reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the
Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours.
Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the
curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of
science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder
Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the
earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a
laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature,
earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable
curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention
the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the
creation of the globe” (Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588–590).

Even conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity and the
credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman historians, what do
they prove? Do they prove that Christ was divine—that he was a
supernatural being, as claimed? No more than do the writings of Paine and
Voltaire, which also contain his name. This evidence is favorable not to the
adherents, but to the opponents, of Christianity. If these passages be

genuine, and their authors have penned historical truths, it simply confirms
what most Rationalists admit, that a religious sect called Christians, who
recognized Christ as their founder, existed as early as the first century; and
confirms what some have charged, but what the church is loath to admit,
that primitive Christians, who have been declared the highest exemplars of
human virtue, were the most depraved of villains.

An unlettered and credulous enthusiast, named Jones, imagines that he has
had a revelation, and proceeds to found a new religious sect. He gathers
about him a band of “disciples” as ignorant and credulous as himself. He
soon gets into trouble and is killed. But the Jonesists increase—increase in
numbers and in meanness—until at length they become sufficiently
notorious to receive a paragraph from an annalist who, after holding them
up to ridicule and scorn, accounts for their origin by stating that they take
their name from one Jones who, during the administration of President
Roosevelt, was hanged as a criminal. The world contains two billions of
inhabitants—mostly fools, as Carlyle would say—and as the religion of this
sect is a little more foolish than that of any other sect, it continues to spread
until at the end of two thousand years it covers the globe. Then think of the
adherents of this religion citing the uncomplimentary allusion of this
annalist to prove that Jones was a god!

CHAPTER III.

Christian Evidence.

The Four Gospels.

Farrar, in his “Life of Christ,” concedes and deplores the dearth of evidence
concerning the subject of his work. He says: “It is little short of amazing
that neither history nor tradition should have embalmed for us one certain
or precious saying or circumstance in the life of the Savior of Mankind,
except the comparatively few events recorded in four very brief
biographies.”

With these four brief biographies, the Four Gospels, Christianity must stand
or fall. These four documents, it is admitted, contain practically all the
evidence which can be adduced in proof of the existence and divinity of
Jesus Christ. Profane history, as we have seen, affords no proof of this. The
so-called apocryphal literature of the early church has been discarded by the
church itself. Even the remaining canonical books of the New Testament are
of little consequence if the testimony of the Four Evangelists be
successfully impeached. Disprove the authenticity and credibility of these
documents and this Christian deity is removed to the mythical realm of
Apollo, Odin, and Osiris.

In a previous work, “The Bible,” I have shown that the books of the New
Testament, with a few exceptions, are not authentic. This evidence cannot
be reproduced here in full. A brief summary of it must suffice.

The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, two of them apostles, and two companions of the apostles of Christ. If
this claim be true the other writings of the apostles, the writings of the

Apostolic Fathers, and the writings of the early Christian Fathers, ought to
contain some evidences of the fact.

Twenty books—nearly all of the remaining books of the New Testament—
are said to have been written by the three apostles, Peter, John, and Paul, a
portion of them after the first three Gospels were written; but it is admitted
that they contain no evidence whatever of the existence of these Gospels.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of
Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part,
early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four
Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We
have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as
Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote
in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New
Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of
the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named”
(Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin
Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the
second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the
use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three
hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one
hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from
the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the
Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him
[Justin]—do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, another noted Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He refers to
writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them clearly indicate
that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Dr. Davidson, the
highest English authority on the canon, says: “He [Papias] neither felt the
want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels” (Canon of the Bible, p.
123).

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second
century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later,
mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In
the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and
Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were
undoubtedly written or compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply
imply that they are “according” to the supposed teachings of these
Evangelists. As Renan says, “They merely signify that these were the
traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their
authority.” Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: “They
appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe
their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence
whatever” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in Hebrew.
Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this St. Jerome
says: “Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain.”
The consequences of this admission are thus expressed by Michaelis: “If the
original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek
translation; then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the
words.”

The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written by the
Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal teachings
which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the following
language: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (xvi,
18 ). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was written after the
beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to uphold the supremacy of
the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel Dr. Davidson says: “The
author, indeed, must ever remain unknown” (Introduction to New
Testament, p. 72).

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of
Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter
half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany’s greatest theologians, after a critical
analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of
thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall’s Schleiermacher
says: “He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and
arranger of documents which he found in existence” (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion,
a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century.
Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his “Lost and Hostile
Gospels,” says: “The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the
conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original
composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third
Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount.”

Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according
to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written.
He says: “It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or
otherwise, from the first and third Gospels” (Leben Jesu, p. 51). Judge
Waite, in his “History of Christianity,” says that all but twenty-four verses
of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares
it to be an anonymous work. “The author,” he says, “is unknown.”

Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics
pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles
which mark the limits of Christ’s earthly career, his miraculous birth and his
ascension.

Concerning the first three Gospels, the “Encyclopedia Britannica” says: “It
is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by
degrees.” Of these books Dr. Westcott says: “Their substance is evidently
much older than their form.” Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them
“unapostolic digests of the second century.”

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is
conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew;
the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida;
the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located.
John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an
accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of
Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this
knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion;
the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed
Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: “The
Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and
though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible” (Canon of the
Bible, p. 127).

That the authenticity of the Four Gospels cannot be maintained is conceded
by every impartial critic. The author of “Supernatural Religion,” in one of
the most profound and exhaustive works on this subject ever written,
expresses the result of his labors in the following words: “After having
exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not
found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century
and a half after the death of Jesus” (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 248).

Fifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian theologian,
referring to this so-called Gospel history, wrote: “It is allowed not to have
been written by the son himself nor by his apostles, but long after by some
unknown men who, lest they should be suspected of writing things they
knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles.”

The following is the verdict of the world’s greatest Bible critic, Baur:
“These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century.”

Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.

The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of
the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It
contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and
conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the “Bible for
Learners” (Vol. III, p. 25) says: “In the first two chapters of the Epistle to
the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no
sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we
clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its
inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate
design.”

This book purports to be the product chiefly of three minds: that of the
author who gives a historical sketch of the early church, and those of Peter
and Paul whose discourses are reported. And yet the three compositions are
clearly the products of one mind—that of the author. The evident purpose of
the work is to heal the bitter dissensions which existed between the Petrine
and Pauline churches, and this points unmistakably to the latter part of the
second century as the date of its appearance, when the work of uniting the
various Christian sects into the Catholic church began. Renan considers this
the most faulty book of the New Testament.

The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second
and Third John, and Jude, have never been held in very high esteem by the
church. Many of the Christian Fathers rejected them, while modern
Christian scholars have generally considered them of doubtful authenticity.
The first and last of these were rejected by Martin Luther. “St. James’
Epistle,” says Luther, “is truly an epistle of straw” (Preface to Luther’s New
Testament, ed. 1524). Jude, he says, “is an abstract or copy of St. Peter’s
Second, and allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture”
(Standing Preface).

The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally been
accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even these were
not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury says that First

Peter “dates, in all probability, from the year 130 A. D., at the earliest”
(Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the founder of the New Testament
canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics, who deny the Johannine authorship of
the Fourth Gospel, and assign its composition to the second century, say:
“The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of
the Gospel” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).

Second Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its existence
prior to 170 A. D. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says “Many reject the epistle
as altogether spurious.” The brief epistles of Second and Third John are
anonymous and of very late origin. They do not purport to be the writings
of John. The superscriptions declare them to be from an elder, and this
precludes the claim that they are from an apostle. The early Fathers ignored
them.

Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of
God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always been
the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but the
seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning the attitude of ancient
churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, says: “Divers of our
predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing
the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the
title forged.”

“The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines,” says the Edinburgh
Review, “almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book of
Revelation.” It is a book which, Dr. South said, “either found a man mad or
left him so.” Calvin and Beza both forbade their clergy to attempt an
explanation of its contents. Luther says: “In the Revelation of John much is
wanting to let me deem it either prophetic or apostolical” (Preface to N. T.,
1524).

Considered as evidences of Christ’s historical existence and divinity these
nine books are of no value. They are all anonymous writings or forgeries,
and, with the possible exception of Revelation, of very late origin. While

they affirm Christ’s existence they are almost entirely silent regarding his
life and miracles.

The Epistles of Paul.

Of the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, seven—Ephesians, Colossians,
Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews—are
conceded by nearly all critics to be spurious, while three others—
Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon—are generally classed as
doubtful.

The general verdict concerning the first seven is thus expressed by the Rev.
Dr. Hooykaas: “Fourteen epistles are said to be Paul’s; but we must at once
strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name at
all. ... The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were certainly
composed long after the death of Paul.... It is more than possible that the
letters to the Ephesians and Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same
suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the
Epistles to the Thessalonians” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 23).

The author of Second Thessalonians, whose epistle is a self-evident forgery,
declares First Thessalonians to be a forgery. Baur and the Tubingen school
reject both Epistles. Baur also rejects Philippians: “The Epistles to the
Colossians and to the Philippians ... are spurious, and were written by the
Catholic school near the end of the second century, to heal the strife
between the Jew and the Gentile factions” (Paulus). Dr. Kuenen and the
other Dutch critics admit that Philippians and Philemon, as well as First
Thessalonians, are doubtful.

That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries is now conceded by all critics.
According to the German critics they belong to the second century.
Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Luther says: “The

Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle”
(Standing Preface to Luther’s N. T.).

Four Epistles—Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians—
while rejected by a few critics, are generally admitted to be the genuine
writings of Paul. These books were written, it is claimed, about a quarter of
a century after the death of Christ. They are the only books of the New
Testament whose authenticity can be maintained.

Admitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not admitting the
historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. Paul was
not a witness of the alleged events upon which Christianity rests. He did not
become a convert to Christianity until many years after the death of Christ.
He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he
did not learn from his disciples. “The Gospel which was preached of me is
not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it” (Gal.
i, 11, 12 ). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion of Christ’s
disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources
—from trances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony the
author of “Supernatural Religion” (p. 970) says: “No one can deny, and
medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject
to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to
supernatural causes. There is not one single valid reason removing the
ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class.”

The corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives slight
confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the incarnate Word
of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the immaculate
conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To him Christ was the son of God in a
spiritual rather than in a physical sense. “His son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared
to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the
resurrection from the dead” (Rom. i, 3, 4 ). “God sent forth his son, made
of a woman [but not of a virgin], made under the law” (Gal. iv, 4 ).

With the Evangelists the proofs of Christ’s divinity are his miracles. Their
books teem with accounts of these. But Paul evidently knows nothing of
these miracles. With him the evidences of Christ’s divine mission are his
resurrection and the spiritual gifts conferred on those who accept him.

The Evangelists teach a material resurrection. When the women visited his
tomb “they entered in and found not the body of Jesus” (Luke xxiv, 3 ).
The divine messengers said to them, “He is not here, but is risen” (6 ). “He
sat at meat” with his disciples; “he took bread, and blessed it, and brake,
and gave to them” (30 ). “Then he said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side”
(John xx, 27 ). This is entirely at variance with the teachings of Paul. “But
now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that
slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of
the dead” (1 Cor. xv, 20, 21 ). “But some man will say, How are the dead
raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou
sowest is not quickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou
sowest not that body that shall be” (35–37 ). “It is sown a natural body; it
is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body” (44 ). “Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God” (50 ).

The Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being—an apparition;
and this appearance he considers of exactly the same character as the post
mortem appearances of Christ to his disciples. “He was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at
once; ... after that, he was seen of James; then of all the Apostles. And last
of all, he was seen of me also” (1 Cor. xv, 5–8 ).

CHAPTER IV.

The Infancy of Christ.
We have seen that the Four Gospels are not authentic, that they are
anonymous writings which appeared late in the second century. If their
contents seemed credible and their statements harmonized with each other
this want of authenticity would invalidate their authority, because the
testimony of an unknown witness cannot be accepted as authoritative. On
the other hand, if their authenticity could be established, if it could be
shown that they were written by the authors claimed, the incredible and
contradictory character of their contents would destroy their authority.

As historical documents these books are hardly worthy of credit. The
“Arabian Nights” is almost as worthy of credit as the Four Gospels. In both
are to be found accounts of things possible and of things impossible. To
believe the impossible is gross superstition; to believe the possible, simply
because it is possible, is blind credulity. These books are adduced as the
credentials of Christ. A critical analysis of these credentials reveals
hundreds of errors. A presentation of these errors will occupy the five
succeeding chapters of this work. If it can be shown that they contain errors,
however trivial some of them may appear, this refutes the claim of
inerrancy and divinity. If it can be shown that they abound with errors, this
destroys their credibility as historical documents. Destroy the credibility of
the Four Gospels and you destroy all proofs of Christ’s divinity—all proofs
of his existence.

1

When was Jesus born?

Matthew: “In the days of Herod” (ii, 1 ).

Luke: “When Cyrenius was governor of Syria” (ii, 1–7 ).

Nearly every biographer gives the date of his subject’s birth. Yet not one of
the Evangelists gives the date of Jesus’ birth. Two, Matthew and Luke,
attempt to give the time approximately. But between these two attempts
there is a discrepancy of at least ten years; for Herod died 4 B. C., while
Cyrenius did not become governor of Syria until 7 A. D.

A reconciliation of these statements is impossible. Matthew clearly states
that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod. Luke states that Augustus
Caesar issued a decree that the world should be taxed, that “this taxing was
first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria,” and that Jesus was born
at the time of this taxing.

The following extracts from Josephus, the renowned historian of the race
and country to which Jesus belonged, give the date of this taxing and the
time that elapsed between the death of Herod and the taxing, and which
reckoned backward from this gives the date of Herod’s death:

“And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for
he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left his kingdom, to be
tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus....
When he had done these things he died” (Antiquities, B. xvii, ch. 8, sec. 1).

“But in the tenth year of Archelaus’s government, both his brethren, and the
principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous
and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar.... And when he
was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had
to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed
Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money
away from him” (Ibid, ch. 13, sec. 2).

“Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one
that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects
in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus” (Ib. sec. 5).

“When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the
taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh
of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium,” etc. (Ib., B. xviii, ch. 2, sec. 1).

The battle of Actium was fought September 2, B. C. 31. The thirty-seventh
year from this battle comprehended the time elapsing between September 2,
A. D. 6, and September 2, A. D. 7, the mean of which was March 2, A. D. 7.
The mean of the tenth year preceding this—the year in which Herod died—
was September 2, B. C. 4.

It has been suggested by some unacquainted with Roman history that
Cyrenius [Quirinus] may have been twice governor of Syria. Cyrenius was
but once governor of Syria, and this not until 7 A. D. During the last years
of Herod’s reign, and during all the years of Archelaus’s reign, Sentius
Saturninus and Quintilius Varus held this office. Even if Cyrenius had
previously held the office the events related by Luke could not have
occurred then because Judea prior to 7 A. D. was not a part of Syria.

The second chapter of Luke which narrates the birth and infancy of Jesus,
conflicts with the first chapter of this book. In this chapter it is expressly
stated that Zacharias, the priest, lived in the time of Herod and,
inferentially, that the conceptions of John and Jesus occurred at this time.

Christian chronology, by which events are supposed to be reckoned from
the birth of Christ, agrees with neither Matthew nor Luke, but dates from a
point nearly intermediate between the two. According to Matthew, Christ
was born at least five years before the beginning of the Christian era;
according to Luke he was born at least six years after the beginning of the
Christian era. This is 1907: but according to Matthew Christ was born not
later than 1912 years ago; while according to Luke he was born not earlier
than 1901 years ago.

At least ten different opinions regarding the year of Christ’s birth have been
advanced by Christian scholars. Dodwell places it in 6 B. C., Chrysostom 5
B. C., Usher, whose opinion is most commonly received, 4 B. C., Irenaeus
3 B. C., Jerome 2 B. C., Tertullian 1 B. C. Some modern authorities place it

in 1 A. D., others in 2 A. D., and still others in 3 A. D.; while those who
accept Luke as infallible authority must place it as late as 7 A. D.

2

It is generally assumed that Jesus was born in the last year of Herod’s reign.
How long before the close of Herod’s reign was he born?

Matthew: At least two years (ii, 1–16 ).

Matthew says that when the wise men visited Herod he diligently inquired
of them the time when the star which announced the birth of Jesus first
appeared. When he determined to destroy Jesus and massacred the infants
of Bethlehem and the surrounding country, he slew those “from two years
old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the
wise men,” clearly indicating that Jesus was nearly or quite two years old at
this time.

In attempting to reconcile Matthew’s visit of the wise men to Jesus at
Bethlehem with the narrative of Luke, which makes his stay there less than
six weeks, it has been assumed that this visit occurred immediately after his
birth, whereas, according to Matthew, it did not occur until about two years
after his birth.

3

In what month and on what day of the month was he born?

Not one of his biographers is prepared to tell; primitive Christians did not
know; the church has never been able to determine this. A hundred different
opinions regarding it have been expressed by Christian scholars. Wagenseil
places it in February, Paulius in March, Greswell in April, Lichtenstein in
June, Strong in August, Lightfoot in September, and Newcome in October.
Clinton says that he was born in the Spring; Larchur says that he was born
in the Fall. Some early Christians believed that it occurred on the 5th of
January; others the 19th of April; others still on the 20th of May. The
Eastern church believed that he was born on the 7th of January. The church
of Rome, in the fourth century, selected the 25th of December on which to
celebrate the anniversary of his birth; and this date has been accepted by the
greater portion of the Christian world.

4

What determined the selection of this date?

“There was a double reason for selecting this day. In the first place it had
been observed from a hoary antiquity as a heathen festival, following the
longest night of the winter solstice, and was called ‘the Birthday of the
Unconquerable Sun.’ It was a fine thought to celebrate on that day the birth
of him whom the Gospel called “the light of the world”.... The second
reason was, that at Rome the days from the 17th to the 23d of December
were devoted to unbridled merrymaking. These days were called the
Saturnalia.... Now the church was always anxious to meet the heathen,
whom she had converted or was beginning to convert, half-way, by
allowing them to retain the feasts they were accustomed to, only giving
them a Christian dress, or attaching a new and Christian signification to
them” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, pp. 66, 67).

Gibbon says: “The Roman Christians, ignorant of the real time of the birth
of Jesus, fixed the solemn festival on the 25th of December, the winter
solstice when the Pagans annually celebrated the birth of the sun.”

5

What precludes the acceptance of this date?

Luke: At the time of his birth “there were in the same country shepherds
abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night” (ii, 8 ).

Shepherds did not abide in the field with their flocks at night in mid-winter.
The Rev. Cunningham Geikie, D. D., a leading English orthodox authority
on Christ, says:

“One knows how wretched even Rome is in winter and Palestine is much
worse during hard weather. Nor is it likely that shepherds would lie out
through the night, except during unseasonably fine weather” (Christmas at
Bethlehem, in Deems’ Holydays and Holidays, p. 405).

“The nativity of Jesus in December should be given up.”—Dr. Adam
Clarke.

In regard to the date of Christ’s birth Dr. Farrar says: “It must be admitted
that we cannot demonstrate the exact year of the nativity.... As to the day
and month of the nativity it is certain that they can never be recovered; they
were absolutely unknown to the early fathers, and there is scarcely one
month of the year which has not been fixed upon as probable by modern
critics.”

The inability of Christians to determine the date of Christ’s birth is one of
the strongest proofs of his non-existence as a historical character. Were the
story of his miraculous birth and marvelous life true the date of his birth
would have been preserved and would be today, the best authenticated fact
in history.

6

Where was Jesus born?

Matthew and Luke: In Bethlehem of Judea (Matt. ii, 1 ; Luke ii, 1–7 ).

Aside from these stories in Matthew and Luke concerning the nativity,
which are clearly of later origin than the remaining documents composing
the books and which many Christian scholars reject, there is not a word in
the Four Gospels to confirm the claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Every statement in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Acts,
concerning his nativity, is to the effect that he was born in Nazareth of
Galilee. He is never called “Jesus of Bethlehem,” but always “Jesus of
Nazareth.” According to modern usage “Jesus of Nazareth” might merely
signify that Nazareth was the place of his residence and not necessarily the
place of his birth. But this usage was unknown to the Jews. Had he been
born at Bethlehem, he would, according to the Jewish custom, have been
called “Jesus of Bethlehem,” because the place of birth always determined
this distinguishing adjunct, and the fact of his having removed to another
place would not have changed it.

Peter (Acts ii, 22 ; iii, 6 ); Paul (Acts xxvi, 9 ), Philip (John i, 45 ),
Cleopas and his companion (Luke xxiv, 19 ), Pilate (John xix, 19 ), Judas
and the band sent to arrest Jesus (John xviii, 5, 7 ), the High Priest’s maid
(Mark xiv, 67 ), blind Bartimaeus (Mark x, 47 ), the unclean spirits (Mark
i, 24 ; Luke iv, 34 ), the multitudes that attended his meetings (Matt. xxi,
11 ; Luke xviii, 37 ), all declared him to be a native of Nazareth.

To the foregoing may be added the testimony of Jesus himself. When Paul
asked him who he was he answered: “I am Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts xxii,
8 ).

Many of the Jews rejected Christ because he was born in Galilee and not in
Bethlehem. “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ
come out of Galilee? Hath not the scriptures said, That Christ cometh out of
the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?”
(John vii, 41, 42 ).

Concerning this subject the “Bible for Learners” says: “The primitive
tradition declared emphatically that Nazareth was the place from which
Jesus came. We may still see this distinctly enough in our Gospels. Jesus is
constantly called the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth. This was certainly the
name by which he was known in his own time; and of course such local
names were given to men from the place of their birth, and not from the
place in which they lived, which might constantly be changing. Nazareth is
called in so many words his own, that is his native city, and he himself
declares it so” (vol. iii, pp. 39, 40).

That Jesus the man, if such a being existed, was not born at Bethlehem is
affirmed by all critics. That he could not have been born at Nazareth is
urged by many. Nazareth, it is asserted, did not exist at this time. Christian
scholars admit that there is no proof of its existence at the beginning of the
Christian era outside of the New Testament. The Encyclopedia Biblica, a
leading Christian authority, says: “We cannot perhaps venture to assert
positively that there was a city called Nazareth in Jesus’ time.”

7

His reputed birth at Bethlehem was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

“And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the
princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my
people Israel” (Matthew ii, 6 ).

This is a misquotation of Micah v, 2 . The passage as it appears in our
version of the Old Testament is itself a mistranslation. Correctly rendered it
does not mean that this ruler shall come from Bethlehem, but simply that he
shall be a descendant of David whose family belonged to Bethlehem.

Concerning this prophecy it may be said, 1. That Jesus never became
governor or ruler of Israel; 2. That the ruler referred to was to be a military
leader who should deliver Israel from the Assyrians. “And this man shall be
the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into the land ... thus shall he
deliver us from the Assyrian” (Micah v, 5, 6 ).

8

Jesus is called the Son of David. Why?

Matthew and Luke: Because Joseph, who was not his father, but merely his
guardian or foster father, was descended from David.

The Jews expected a Messiah. This expectation was realized, it is claimed,
in Jesus Christ. His Messianic marks, however, were not discernible and the
Jews, for the most part, rejected him. This Messiah must be a son of David.
Before Jesus’ claims could even be considered his Davidic descent must be
established. This Matthew and Luke attempt to do. Each gives what
purports to be a genealogy of him. If these genealogies agree they may be
false; if they do not agree one must be false.

9

How many generations were there from David to Jesus?

Matthew: Twenty-eight (i, 6–16 ).

Luke: Forty-three (iii, 23–31 ).

Luke makes two more generations from David to Jesus in a period of one
thousand years than Matthew does from Abraham to Jesus in a period of
two thousand years.

10

How many generations were there from Abraham to Jesus?

Matthew: “From Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from
David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and
from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations”—in all, forty-two generations (i, 17 ).

Here Matthew contradicts his own record given in the preceding sixteen
verses; for, including both Abraham and Jesus, he names but forty-one
generations: 1. Abraham, 2. Isaac, 3. Jacob, 4. Judas, 5. Phares, 6. Ezrom, 7.
Aram, 8. Aminadab, 9. Naason, 10. Salmon, 11. Booz, 12. Obed, 13. Jesse,
14. David, 15. Solomon, 16. Roboam, 17. Abia, 18. Asa, 19. Josaphat, 20.
Joram, 21. Ozias, 22. Joatham, 23. Achaz, 24. Ezekias, 25. Manasses, 26.
Amon, 27. Josias, 28. Jechonias, 29. Salathiel, 30. Zorobabel, 31. Abiud,
32. Eliakim, 33. Azor, 34. Sadoc, 35. Achim, 36. Eliud, 37. Eleazer, 38.
Matthan, 39. Jacob, 40. Joseph, 41. Jesus Christ.

11

Does Luke’s genealogy agree with the Old Testament?

It does not. Luke gives twenty generations from Adam to Abraham, while
Genesis (v, 3–32 ; xi, 10–26 ) and Chronicles (1 Ch. i, 1–4 ; 24–27 )
each gives but nineteen.

12

How many generations were there from Abraham to David?

Matthew: “From Abraham to David are fourteen generations” (i, 17 ).

From Abraham to David are not fourteen, but thirteen generations; for
David does not belong to this period. The genealogical table of Matthew
naturally and logically comprises three divisions which he recognizes. The
first division comprises the generations preceding the establishment of the
Kingdom of David, beginning with Abraham; the second comprises the
kings of Judah, beginning with David the first and ending with Jechonias
the last; the third comprises the generations following the kings of Judah,
from the Captivity to Christ.

13

How many generations were there from David to the Captivity?

Matthew: “From David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen
generations” (i, 17 ).

In order to obtain a uniformity of numbers—three periods of double seven
(seven was the sacred number of the Jews) each—Matthew purposely

falsifies the records of the Old Testament. A reference to the Davidic
genealogy (1 Chronicles iii ) shows that he omits the generations of
Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim, four Jewish kings, lineal
descendants of David, whose combined reigns amount to over eighty years.

Matthew. Chronicles.
David, David,
Solomon, Solomon,
Reboam, Rehoboam,
Abia, Abia,
Asa, Asa,
Josaphat, Jehoshaphat,
Joram, Joram,
Ahaziah,
Joash,
Amaziah,
Ozias, Azariah,
Joatham, Jotham,
Achaz, Ahaz,
Ezekias, Hezekiah,
Manasses, Manasseh,
Amon, Amon,
Josias, Josiah,
Jehoiakim,
Jechonias. Jechoniah.

The first three omissions are thus explained by Augustine: “Ochozias
[Ahaziah], Joash, and Amazias were excluded from the number, because
their wickedness was continuous and without interval.”

As if the exclusion of their names from a genealogical list would expunge
their records from history and drain their blood from the veins of their
descendants. But aside from the absurdity of this explanation, the premises

are false. Those whose names are excluded from the list were not men
whose “wickedness was continuous and without interval,” while some
whose names are not excluded were. Ahaziah reigned but one year. Joash
reigned forty years and both Kings and Chronicles affirm that “He did that
which was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings xii, 2 ; 2 Chron. xxiv,
2 ). Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years, and he, too, “did that which was
right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings xiv, 3 ). On the other hand,
Rehoboam, Joram and Jechonias, whose names are retained in Matthew’s
table, are represented as monsters of wickedness.

14

Name the generations from David to the Captivity.

Matthew. Luke.
David, David,
Solomon, Nathan,
Roboam, Mattatha,
Abia, Menan,
Asa, Melea,
Josaphat, Eliakim,
Joram, Jonan,
Ozias, Joseph,
Joatham, Juda,
Achas, Simeon,
Ezekias, Levi,
Manasses, Matthat,
Amon, Jorim,
Josias, Eliezer,
Jechonias. Jose,

Matthew. Luke.
Er,
Elmodam,
Cosam,
Addi,
Melchi,
Neri.

15

How many generations were there from the Captivity to Christ?

Matthew: “From the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen
generations” (i, 17 ).

Matthew is again guilty of deception. A reference to his table shows that
there were but thirteen generations. In order to carry out his numerical
system of fourteen generations to each period he counts the generation of
Jechonias in this period which he has already counted in the preceding
period; thus performing the mathematical feat of dividing 27 by 2 and
obtaining 14 for a quotient.

Had Matthew given a true summary of this genealogy, assuming the
generations from the close of the Old Testament record to Christ to be
correct, instead of these periods of double seven each, we would have the
following: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are thirteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are
nineteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ
are thirteen generations.”

16

Name the generations from the Captivity to Christ.

Matthew. Luke. Chronicles.
Salathiel, Salathiel, Pediah,
Zorobabel, Zorobabel, Zerubabel,
Abiud, Rhesa, Hananiah,
Eliakim, Joanna, Schecania,
Azor, Juda, Shemaiah,
Sadoc, Joseph, Neariah,
Achim, Semei, Elioenai,
Eliud, Mattathias, Hodaiah,
Eleazer, Maath, (Here the genealogy of Chronicles ends.)
Matthan, Nagge,
Jacob, Esli,
Joseph, Naum,
Jesus. Amos,
Mattathias,
Joseph,
Janna,
Melchi,
Levi,
Heli,
Matthat,
Joseph,
Jesus.

17

According to the accepted chronology, what was the average age of each
generation from David to Jesus?

Luke: Twenty-five years.

Matthew: Forty years.

18

What was the average age from David to the Captivity?

Matthew: Thirty-seven years.

According to Chronicles the average age of the same line for the same
period was but twenty-six years.

19

What was the average age from the Captivity to Jesus?

Luke: Twenty-eight years.

Matthew: Fifty years.

While the average age from David to the Captivity by way of Solomon was
but twenty-six years the average age from the Captivity to Jesus by the
same line, according to Matthew, was fifty years. This proves the falsity of
Matthew’s genealogy from the Captivity to Jesus.

20

What was the average length of each generation from Abraham to David?

Matthew and Luke: Seventy years.

Seventy years is said to constitute the natural life of man. According to
these Evangelists Christ’s Pre-Davidic ancestors only reached maturity at
seventy. How slow was man’s development then—a babe in his mother’s
arms at twenty; a playful child at forty; at sixty an ardent youth wooing a
blushing maiden of half a hundred years; at three score years and ten a fond
young father rejoicing at the birth of his first-born!

21

What was the average length of each generation from Adam to Abraham?

Luke: One hundred years.

22

How many generations were there from Adam to Abraham?

Luke: Twenty (iii, 34–38 ).

Luke makes less than half as many generations from Adam to Abraham in a
period of two thousand years as he does from David to Jesus in a period of
one thousand years.

23

How many generations were there between Rachab, the mother of Booz,
and David?

Matthew: Three—Booz, Obed and Jesse (i, 5, 6 ).

Rachab lived at Jericho when it was taken by the Israelites. Jericho was
taken 1451 B. C., the year that Moses died. David was born 1085 B. C.—
nearly four centuries later.

24

Assuming the generations following the Captivity in Matthew and
Chronicles to run parallel, how many generations were there between the
last generation named in Chronicles and Jesus?

Matthew: Four.

Yet Chronicles was written, it is claimed, from 458 to 604 years before
Christ.

“If the Chronicles were written by Ezra, the date of their composition was
not far from B. C. 458, the year of the return from the Captivity. If by
Daniel, the earlier period of from 604 to 534 must be adopted.”—Rev. Dr.
Hitchcock.

25

Name the first ten ancestors of Jesus.

Luke: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Maleleel, Jared, Enoch, Mathusala,
Lamech, Noe (iii, 36–38 ).

Archeological researches have shown these to be ten Babylonian kings.

26

Who was Sala?

Luke: “Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad”
(iii, 35, 36 ).

“And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah” (Genesis xi,
12 ).

According to Luke Sala was the grand-son of Arphaxad; according to
Genesis he was the son of Arphaxad.

27

Who begat Ozias?

Matthew: “Joram begat Ozias” (i, 8 ).

“Ahaziah his [Joram’s] son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah
[Ozias] his son” (1 Chronicles iii, 11, 12 ).

According to the New Testament Ozias was the son of Joram; according to
the Old Testament he was the great great-grandson of Joram.

28

Who was Josiah’s successor?

Matthew: Jechonias (i, 11 ).

“Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, and made
him king in his father’s stead” (2 Chronicles xxxvi, 1 ).

“For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum, the son of Josiah, king of Judah,
which reigned instead of Josiah, his father” (Jeremiah xxii, 11 ).

“And Pharaoh-nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of
Josiah, his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim” (2 Kings xxiii, 34 ).

According to Matthew, Josiah’s successor was Jechonias; according to
Chronicles, Jehoahaz; according to Jeremiah, Shallum; according to Kings,
Jehoiakim.

29

Who was the father of Jechonias?

Matthew: “Josias begat Jechonias” (i, 11 ).

Josias was not the father but the grandfather of Jechonias. “And the sons of
Josiah were, ... the second Jehoiakim.... And the sons of Jehoiakim:
Jechoniah, his son” (1 Chron. iii, 15, 16 ).

30

When did Josias beget Jechonias?

Matthew: “And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they
were carried away into Babylon” (i, 11 ).

Josiah became king 641 B. C. and died 610 B. C. Jechonias was carried to
Babylon 588 B. C., 22 years after Josiah died.

31

Did Jechonias have a son?

Matthew: “And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat
Salathiel” (i, 12 ).

“As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jechonias], the son of Jehoiakim,
king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee
thence.... O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the

Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days:
for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and
ruling no more in Judah” (Jeremiah xxii, 24–30 ).

This curse was pronounced upon Jechonias before he was taken to Babylon.
By this divine oath Jesus is precluded from becoming an heir to the throne
of David. God swears that Jechonias shall be childless, and that no
descendant of his shall ever sit upon the throne. Yet Matthew, in the face of
this oath, declares that Jechonias did not remain childless, that he begat a
son, Salathiel, the progenitor of Jesus. In attempting to make Jesus an heir
to David’s throne Matthew makes God a liar and perjurer.

32

Matthew says that Salathiel was the son of Jechonias. Who does Luke
declare him to be?

“The son of Neri” (iii, 27 ).

33

Who was the father of Zorobabel?

Matthew: “And Salathiel begat Zorobabel” (i, 12 ).

Luke: “Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel” (iii, 27 ).

Here both Evangelists agree—agree to disagree with Chronicles which says
that Zorobabel was the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. “And the
sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei” (1 Chron. iii, 19 ).

34

Who was the son of Zorobabel?

Matthew: “And Zorobabel begat Abiud” (i, 13 ).

Luke: “Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel” (iii, 27 ).

Each contradicts the other, and both contradict the Old Testament (1 Chron.
iii, 19, 20 ).

35

Who was the father of Joseph?

Matthew: “And Jacob begat Joseph” (i, 16 ).

Luke: “Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (iii, 23 ).

36

If Jesus was descended from David, the descent was through one of David’s
sons. Which one?

Matthew: Solomon (i, 6–16 ).

Luke: Nathan (iii, 23–31 ).

Luke reaches the same person by way of one brother that Matthew does by
way of the other.

37

Many commentators attempt to reconcile these discordant genealogies by
assuming that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives the
genealogy of Mary. What do the Evangelists themselves declare?

Matthew: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was
born Jesus, who is called Christ,” etc. (i, 16 ).

Luke: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as
was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” etc. (iii, 23 ).

Dr. Geikie, in his “Life of Christ” (vol. i, p. 531, note), says: “The
genealogies given by both Matthew and Luke seem unquestionably to refer
to Joseph.”

Regarding this the Rev. Dr. McNaught says: “Let the reader bear in mind
how Matthew states that ‘Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary,’ and
how Luke’s words are ‘Joseph which was the son of Heli,’ and then let him
say whether it is truthful to allege that these different genealogies belong to
different individuals. Is it not plain that each of them professes to trace the
lineal descent of one and the same man, Joseph?”

William Rathbone Greg says: “The circumstance that any man could
suppose that Matthew when he said, ‘Jacob begat Joseph,’ or Luke, when he
said, ‘Joseph was the son of Heli,’ could refer to the wife of the one, or the
daughter-in-law of the other, shows to what desperate stratagems polemical
orthodoxy will resort in order to defend an untenable position.”

Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” offers the following explanation: “They are both
the genealogies of Joseph, i. e., of Jesus Christ, as the reputed and legal son
of Joseph and Mary. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as
legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private
genealogy, exhibiting his real birth, as David’s son, and thus showing why
he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one Evangelist
exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heirs to David’s and
Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who
was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees.”

This “simple principle” necessitates three disagreeable postulates. 1. That
the lineage of Nathan, who is not the recorded possessor of even one wife,
survived, while that of Solomon who had seven hundred wives became
extinct. 2. That Joseph was legal successor to the throne of David, when
Heli, his father, was not. 3. That the first chapter of Matthew contains more
than a score of errors. That little word “begat” is fatal to the above theory.
Matthew declares that Jacob begat Joseph. If Jacob begat Joseph, then
Jacob, and not Heli, was the father of Joseph. According to Matthew, the
royal line descends from David to Joseph unbroken; each heir begetting the
succeeding one, thus precluding the possibility of a collateral branch
inheriting the throne.

The hypothesis that Jesus was merely the adopted son and legal heir of
Joseph and yet fulfilled the Messianic requirements is untenable. Strauss
says: “Adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son the
reversion of certain external family rights and inheritances; but such a
relationship could in no wise lend a claim to the Messianic dignity, which
was attached to the true blood and lineage of David” (Leben Jesu, p. 122).

The Messiah must be a natural and lineal descendant of David, which Peter
expressly declares Jesus to be: “God had sworn with an oath to him
[David], that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise
up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts ii, 30 ).

It is assumed by some that a Levirate marriage had taken place between the
parents of Joseph, and that the one genealogy belonged to the natural, the

others to the legal father of Joseph. By a Levirate marriage if a man died
without heirs his remaining brother married his widow and raised up heirs
to him. But in this case the brothers would have the same father, and the
genealogies would differ only in the father of Joseph. It is only by a
succession of Levirate marriages and a juggling of words, which no
intelligent critic can seriously entertain, that such a hypothesis can be
considered possible, even waiving the Old Testament writers, and the
Evangelists themselves, whose language forbids it.

Eusebius advances an explanation characteristic of this ecclesiastical
historian and of the early church whose history he professes to record. The
Jews, it is said, were divided in their opinions regarding the descent of the
Messiah. While some contended that his descent must be through the royal
line, others believed that because of the excessive wickedness of the kings
the descent would be through another line. Eusebius says: “Matthew gives
his opinion, Luke repeats the common opinion of many, not his own.... This
last view Luke takes, though conscious that Matthew gives the real truth of
the genealogy.”

Matthew’s genealogy is self-evidently false; while Luke’s according to the
admission of the historian of the primitive church, is merely a fabrication of
early Christians, designed to influence those who rejected Matthew’s
genealogy of the Messiah.

38

If the miraculous conception be true the Davidic descent could only be
through Mary. Was Mary descended from David?

“We are wholly ignorant of the name and occupation of St. Mary’s parents.
She was, like Joseph, of the tribe of Judah, and of the lineage of David (Ps.
cxxxii, 11 ; Luke i, 32 ; Rom. i, 3 ).”—Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

Three passages are cited in support of this claim:

1. “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it. Of the
fruit of thy body will I sit upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my
covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also
sit upon thy throne forevermore” (Ps. cxxxii, 11, 12 ).

2. “He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest; and the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke i, 32 ).

3. “Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh” (Rom. i, 3 ).

The second and third passages do not refer to Mary; the first passage refers
neither to Jesus nor Mary. There is no evidence to prove that Mary was
descended from David. On the contrary there is evidence to prove that she
was not descended from him.

1. “The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called
Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the
house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke i, 27 ). Joseph,
and not Mary is declared to be of the house of David.

2. It is stated that Joseph went to Bethlehem “to be taxed with Mary,” not
because they, but “because he was of the house and lineage of David” (Luke
ii, 4, 5 ).

3. Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth (Luke i, 3 ), and Elizabeth “was of the
daughters of Aaron” (i, 5 ), i. e., descended from Levi, while the house of
David was descended from Judah.

This desperate, yet ineffectual, effort to establish the Davidic descent of
Mary is virtually an abandonment of the genealogical tables of Matthew
and Luke, and a falling back upon this pitiable argumentum in circulo:
Mary was descended from David because the Messiah was to be descended
from David, and Jesus was the Messiah because Mary was descended from
David.

These genealogies do not give the lineage of Mary who is said to have been
his only earthly parent, but the lineage of Joseph who, it is claimed, was not
his father. But if Joseph was not the father of Jesus, what is the use of
giving his pedigree? If Joseph was not the father of Jesus how does proving
that he was descended from David prove that Jesus was descended from
David? If these genealogies run through Joseph to Jesus, as stated by
Matthew and Luke, then Joseph must have been the father of Jesus; and if
he was the father of Jesus the story of the miraculous conception is false.

The Synoptics, as we have seen, are for the most part, mere compilations,
made up of preexisting documents. These documents belonged to different
ages of the primitive church. In the first ages of the church Christians
believed that Jesus was simply a man—the son of Joseph and Mary. The
genealogies of Matthew and Luke, which trace his descent from David
through Joseph, belonged to this age. The story of the miraculous
conception was the product of a later age.

If the dogma of the miraculous conception be true, if God, and not Joseph,
was the father of Jesus as taught, these genealogies, being genealogies of
Joseph, fail to prove what they are intended to prove, the royal descent of
Jesus from David. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke and their accounts
of the miraculous conception mutually exclude each other.

39

Did Jesus believe himself to be descended from David?

Synoptics: He did not (Matt. xxii, 41–46 ; Mark xii, 35–37 ; Luke xx, 41–
44 ).

A principal objection to accepting Jesus as the Messiah by the Jews was the
fact that he was not descended from David. He tacitly admitted that he was

not, and the whole burden of his argument was to convince them that it was
not necessary that he should be.

40

The miraculous conception was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with
child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel”
(i, 22, 23 ).

This is esteemed the “Gem of the Prophecies,” and may be found in the
seventh chapter of Isaiah. The facts are these: Rezin, king of Syria, and
Pekah, king of Israel, had declared war against Ahaz, king of Judah. God
assured Ahaz that they should not succeed, but that their own kingdoms
should be destroyed by the Assyrians. To convince him of the truth of this
he requested Ahaz to demand a sign. “But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither
will I tempt the Lord.... Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Emmanuel.... Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

In the succeeding chapter the fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded: “And
I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the
Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall
have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus
[the capital of Rezin’s kingdom] and the spoils of Samaria [the capital of
Pekah’s kingdom] shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.” Rezin
and Pekah were overthrown by the Assyrians about 720 B. C.

One of the most convincing proofs of Christ’s divinity, with many, is the
supposed fact that he was born of a virgin and that his miraculous birth was

foretold by a prophet seven hundred years before the event occurred. Now,
there is not a passage in the Jewish Scriptures declaring that a child should
be born of a virgin. The word translated “virgin” does not mean a virgin in
the accepted sense of the term, but simply a young woman, either married
or single. The whole passage is a mistranslation. The words rendered “a
virgin shall conceive and bear a son” should read, “a young woman is with
child and beareth a son.” In this so-called prophecy there is not the remotest
reference to a miraculous conception and a virgin-born child. The Jews
themselves did not regard this passage as a Messianic prophecy; neither did
they believe that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin.

Next to the preceding the following is most frequently cited as a Messianic
prophecy: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, ... until Shiloh come”
(Genesis xlix, 10 ).

If Shiloh refers to Christ the prophecy was not fulfilled, for the sceptre did
depart from Judah 600 years before Christ came. But Shiloh does not refer
to a Messiah, nor to any man. Shiloh was the seat of the national sanctuary
before it was removed to Jerusalem. This so-called prophecy, like the
preceding, is a mistranslation. The correct reading is as follows: “The
preeminence shall not depart from Judah so long as the people resort to
Shiloh.”

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government
shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be declared Wonderful,
Counsellor, The Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”
(Isaiah ix, 6 ).

Prof. Cheyne, the highest authority on Isaiah, pronounces this a forgery.
Every honest Christian scholar must admit this. It is a self-evident forgery.
No Jewish writer could have written it. To have declared even the Messiah
to be “The mighty God, the everlasting Father” would have been the rankest
blasphemy, a crime the punishment of which was death.

These alleged Messianic prophecies are, in their present form, Christian
rather than Jewish. Christian translators and exegetists have altered their

language and perverted their meaning to make them appear to refer to
Christ. The following is an example:

“I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days
Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name
whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS”
(Jeremiah xxiii, 5, 6 ).

The correct rendering of this passage is as follows:

“I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In his days
Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name
whereby they shall call themselves: The Eternal is our righteousness.”

To make a Messianic prophecy of this passage and give it effect no less than
eight pieces of deception were employed by the editors of our Authorized
Version:

1. The word “branch” is made to begin with a capital letter.

2. The word “king” also begins with a capital.

3. “The name” is rendered “his name.”

4. The pronoun “they,” relating to the people of Judah and Israel, is changed
to “he.”

5. The word “Eternal” is translated “Lord.”

6. “The Lord our righteousness” is printed in capitals.

7. In the table of contents, at the head of the chapter, are the words “Christ
shall rule and save them.”

8. At the top of the page are the words “Christ promised.”

Another example of this Messianic prophecy making is the following:

“Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah the Prince,
shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks” (Daniel ix, 25 ).

The term “week,” it is claimed, means a period of seven years, and assumed
that by Messiah is meant Christ. Seven weeks and three score and two
weeks are sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years, the time that was to elapse from
the command to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of Christ, if the prophecy
was fulfilled. The decree of Cyrus to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple was
made 536 B. C. According to the accepted chronology Christ was born 4 B.
C. From the decree of Cyrus, then, to the coming of Christ was 532 years
instead of 483 years, a period of seven weeks, or forty-nine years, longer
than that named by Daniel. Ezra, the priest, went to Jerusalem 457 B. C.
This event, however, had nothing whatever to do with the decree for
rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple. It occurred 79 years after the decree
was issued, and 58 years after the temple was finished. But a searcher for
Messianic prophecies found that from the time of Ezra to the beginning of
Christ’s ministry was about 483 years, or sixty-nine prophetic weeks; and
notwithstanding there was a deficiency of 79 years at one end of the period,
and an excess of 30 years at the other, it was declared to fit exactly.

Christian theologians pretend to recognize in the Old Testament two kinds
of Messianic prophecies: 1. Specific predictions concerning Christ which
were literally fulfilled; 2. Passages in which the writer refers to other
persons or events, but which God, without the writer’s knowledge, designed
as types of Christ. The fallaciousness of the former having been exposed—
it having been shown that there is not a text in the Jewish Scriptures
predicting the coming of Christ—they now rely chiefly upon the latter to
support their claims. These “prophecies” are almost limitless; for a firm
believer in prophecy can, with a vivid imagination, take almost any passage
and point out a fancied resemblance between the thing it refers to and the
thing he wants confirmed; apparently oblivious to the fact that the passage
is equally applicable to a thousand other things. Had the Mormons accepted
Joe Smith as a Messiah instead of a prophet they would have no lack of

prophecies to support their claims; and by translating and revising the
Scriptures to suit their views, as Christians did, these prophecies would fit
him as well as they do the Christ.

41

What name was to be given the child mentioned in Isaiah’s prophecy?

“They shall call his name Emmanuel” (Matthew i, 23 ).

What name was to be given Mary’s son?

“Thou shalt call his name Jesus” (Matt. i, 21 ).

In the naming of the Christian Messiah Isaiah’s prophecy was not fulfilled.
He was never called Emmanuel, but Jesus.

42

To whom did the angel announcing the miraculous conception appear?

Matthew: To Joseph (i, 20, 21 ).

Luke: To Mary (i, 26–38 ).

“An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards to Joseph; he
can only have appeared either to the one or to the other. Consequently, it is
only the one or the other relation which can be regarded as historical. And
here different considerations would conduct to opposite decisions.... Every
criticism which might determine the adoption of the one, and the rejection

of the other, disappears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both
accounts, driven back by necessity to the mythical view.”—Strauss.

43

For what purpose was the Annunciation made?

Luke: Simply to acquaint Mary with the heavenly decree that she had been
chosen to become the mother of the coming Messiah (i, 26–33 ).

Matthew: To allay the suspicions of Joseph respecting Mary’s chastity and
prevent him from putting her away (i, 18–20 ).

44

Did the Annunciation take place before or after Mary’s conception?

Luke: Before (i, 26–31 ).

Matthew: After (i, 18–20 ).

45

Who was declared to be the father of Jesus?

Matthew: The Holy Ghost (i, 18, 20 ).

With the Jews the Holy Ghost (Spirit) was of feminine gender; with the
Greeks, of masculine gender. The belief that the Holy Ghost was the father
of Jesus originated, not with the Jewish Christians of Palestine, as claimed,
but with the Greek Christians of Alexandria.

46

What prediction did the angel Gabriel make to Mary concerning Jesus?

“The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke i, 32 ).

Respecting this prediction the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “If a
messenger from Heaven had really come to bring a divine revelation to
Mary, the result must have confirmed his prediction; and since Jesus never
fulfilled these expectations it is obvious that the revelation was never
made.”

47

When Mary visited Elizabeth what did she do?

Luke: She uttered a hymn of praise (i, 46–55 ).

Had Mary uttered such a hymn we would suppose that it would have been
original and inspired by the Almighty Father of her unborn child. Yet the
hymn which Luke puts into her mouth was borrowed from the song of
Hannah.

Hannah. Mary.
“My heart rejoiceth in the Lord” (1 “My spirit hath rejoiced in God”
Sam. ii, 1 ). (Luke i, 47 ).
“If thou wilt indeed look on the “For he hath regarded the low estate
affliction of thine handmaid” (i, of his handmaiden” (48 ).
11 ).
“Talk no more so exceeding proudly” “He hath scattered the proud” (51 ).
(ii, 3 ).
“The bows of the mighty men are “He hath put down the mighty from
broken, and they that stumbled are their seats and exalted them of low
girded with strength (4 ). degree” (52 ).
“They that were full hath hired out “He hath filled the hungry with good
themselves for bread; and they that things; and the rich he hath sent
were hungry ceased” (5 ). empty away” (53 ).

48

What decree is said to have been issued by Caesar Augustus immediately
preceding the birth of Christ?

Luke: “That all the world should be taxed” (ii, 1 ).

No such decree was issued by Augustus, nor even one that the Roman
world should be taxed. The taxation of different provinces of the empire
was made at various times, no general decree ever having been issued and
no uniform assessment ever having been attempted by Augustus. An
enrollment of Roman citizens for the purpose of taxation was made in Syria
7 A. D.

49

Of what king was Joseph a subject when Jesus was born?

Matthew: Of Herod.

If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, Joseph, whether a resident of
Judea or of Galilee, could not have been taxed by Augustus, for neither
province was then a part of Syria. Both provinces belonged to Herod’s
kingdom and Herod’s subjects were not taxed by the Roman government.

50

Of what province was Joseph a resident?

Matthew: Of Judea.

Luke: Of Galilee.

If he was a resident of Galilee he could not have been taxed by Augustus,
even in the time of Cyrenius, for Galilee was not a Roman province, but an
independent state, and had no political connection with Syria.

Again, this decree could not have applied to Judea prior to the banishment
of Archelaus, ten years after the time of Herod; for Judea did not become a
Roman province until that time; and while Archelaus had paid tribute to
Rome the assessments of the people were made by him and not by
Augustus.

51

Why was Joseph with his wife obliged to leave Galilee and go to Bethlehem
of Judea to be enrolled?

Luke: “Because he was of the house and lineage of David,” and Bethlehem
was the “city of David” (ii, 4 ).

Even if he had been subject to taxation there was no law or custom
requiring him to leave his own country and go to that of his ancestors to be
enrolled. The assessment, according to the Roman custom, was made at the
residence of the person taxed. Nothing surpasses in absurdity this story of
Luke, that a woman, on the eve of confinement, and the subject of another
ruler, was dragged across two provinces to be enrolled for taxation.

In regard to this taxation Dr. Hooykaas says: “But here again we are met by
overwhelming difficulties. In itself, the Evangelist’s account of the manner
in which the census was carried out is entirely incredible. Only fancy the
indescribable confusion that would have arisen if every one, through the
length and breadth of the land of the Jews, had left his abode to go and
enroll himself in the city or village from which his family originally came,
even supposing he knew where it was. The census under David was
conducted after a very different fashion. But it is still more important to
note that the Evangelist falls into the most extraordinary mistakes
throughout. In the first place history is silent as to a census of the whole
(Roman) world ever having been made at all. In the next place, though
Quirinus [Cyrenius] certainly did make such a register in Judea and
Samaria, it did not extend to Galilee; so that Joseph’s household was not
affected by it. Besides it did not take place till ten years after the death of
Herod, when his son Archelaus was deposed by the Emperor, and the
districts of Judea and Samaria were thrown into a Roman province. Under
the reign of Herod nothing of the kind took place, nor was there any
occasion for it. Finally, at the time of the birth of Jesus the governor of
Syria was not Quirinus, but Quintus Sentius Saturninus” (Bible for
Learners, vol. iii, pp. 55, 56).

52

Was Jesus born in a house or in a stable?

Matthew: “And when they were come into the house, they saw the young
child with Mary his mother” (ii, 11 ).

Luke: “And she brought forth her first born son, and wrapped him in
swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger” (ii, 7 ).

Nothing can be clearer than that the author of Matthew supposes that Jesus
was born in a house. The author of Luke, on the other hand, expressly
declares that he was born in a stable. Luke’s story concerning the place of
Mary’s accouchement has been received, while that of Matthew has been
ignored.

Christ’s birth in a manger and death on the cross are the lodestones that
have attracted the sympathies of the world, and kept him on the throne of
Christendom; for sentiment rather than reason dominates mankind.
Referring to Luke’s story, the “Bible for Learners” says: “Such is the well-
known story of the birth of Jesus, one of the sweetest and most deeply
significant of all the legends of the Bible. That it is a legend, without even
the smallest historical foundation, we must, of course, admit” (vol. iii, p.
54).

Justin Martyr states that Jesus was born in a cave, and this statement Farrar
is disposed to accept: “Justin Martyr, the Apologist, who, from his birth at
Shechem, was familiar with Palestine, and who lived less than a century
after the time of our Lord, places the scene of the nativity in a cave. This is,
indeed, the ancient and constant tradition both of the Eastern and the
Western churches, and it is one of the few to which, though unrecorded in
the Gospel history, we may attach a reasonable probability” (Life of Christ,
p. 3).

53

Why did Joseph and his wife take shelter in a stable?

Luke: “Because there was no room for them in the inn” (ii, 7 ).

Luke states that there was an inn at Bethlehem. There was no inn in the
place. Dr. Geikie says: “We must not moreover think of Joseph seeking an
inn at Bethlehem, for inns were unknown among the Jews” (Christmas at
Bethlehem).

54

What celestial phenomenon attended Christ’s birth?

Matthew: A new star appeared and stood in the heavens above him (ii, 1–
9 ).

Luke: An angelic choir appeared and sang praises to God (ii, 13, 14 ).

Matthew’s story of the star and the Magi, even to the language itself, was
borrowed from the writings of the Persians; Luke’s story of the celestial
visitants was taken from Pagan mythology.

55

Who visited him after his birth?

Matthew: Wise men from the East (ii, 1–11 ).

Luke: Shepherds from a neighboring field (ii, 8–20 ).

Matthew makes no mention of the shepherds’ visit; Luke is evidently
ignorant of the visit of the wise men.

56

From where did the wise men come?

Matthew: “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,
saying: Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star
in the East, and are come to worship him” (ii, 1, 2 ).

By the “East” was meant Persia or India, and from one of these countries
the Magi are popularly supposed to have come.

Justin Martyr says: “When a star rose in heaven at the time of his birth, as is
recorded in the ‘Memoirs’ of his Apostles, the Magi from Arabia,
recognizing the sign by this, came and worshiped him” (Dialogues, cvi).

If they came from Arabia, as this Christian father declares, they came not
from the East, but from the South.

57

What announcement did the angel make to the shepherds?

“For behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all
people” (Luke ii, 10 ).

According to Luke the visit of the angels is to proclaim to the world the
birth of the new-born Messiah. Had the celestial phenomenon reported by
this Evangelist really occurred the news of it would have quickly spread
over Palestine. Yet the people of Jerusalem, only a few miles away, learn
nothing of it; for, according to Matthew, the first intimation that Herod has
of Christ’s birth is from the wise men who visit him at a much later period.
The inhabitants of Bethlehem themselves are ignorant of it. Could they
have discovered to Herod this wonderful babe, or the place where his
parents abode while there if they had departed, it would have saved their
own children from the wrath of this monarch. But they knew nothing of
him.

58

What effect had the announcement of Christ’s birth upon Herod and the
people of Jerusalem?

Matthew: “When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled,
and all Jerusalem with him” (ii, 3 ).

According to Matthew the announcement filled with alarm the entire
populace, and the most diligent efforts were made to discover and destroy
the babe. In strange contrast to this statement of Matthew is Luke’s
narrative (ii, 22–27 ), which declares that Jesus, when forty days old, was
brought to Jerusalem and publicly exhibited in Herod’s own temple, without
exciting any alarm or provoking any hostility.

59

What did his parents do with him?

Matthew: They fled with him into Egypt (ii, 13, 15 ).

Luke: They remained with him in Palestine (ii, 22–52 ).

“All attempts to reconcile these two contradictory statements, seem only
elaborate efforts of art.”—Dr. Schleiermacher.

60

When unable to discover Jesus what did Herod do?

Matthew: “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under” (ii,
16 ).

If this statement be true hundreds of innocent babes (the Greek Calendar
says fourteen thousand) must have perished, a crime the enormity of which
is almost without a parallel in the annals of history. It is strange that Mark,
Luke, and John make no mention of this frightful tragedy. Luke’s silence is
especially significant. It is passing strange that the Roman historians and
Rabbinical writers of that age, who wrote of Herod, should be silent
regarding it. Josephus devotes nearly forty chapters to the life of Herod. He
narrates with much particularity every important event in his life. He
detested this monarch and dwells upon his crimes and errors. Yet Josephus
knew nothing of this massacre.

In this silence of Josephus Dr. Farrar recognizes a difficulty too damaging
to ignore. He says: “Why then, it has been asked, does Josephus make no
mention of so infamous an atrocity? Perhaps because it was performed so
secretly that he did not even know of it. Perhaps because, in those terrible
days, the murder of a score of children, in consequence of a transient

suspicion, would have been regarded as an item utterly insignificant in the
list of Herod’s murders. Perhaps because it was passed over in silence by
Nikolaus of Damascus, who, writing in the true spirit of those Hellenizing
courtiers, who wanted to make a political Messiah out of a corrupt and
blood-stained usurper, magnified all his patron’s achievements, and
concealed or palliated all his crimes. But the more probable reason is that
Josephus, whom, in spite of all the immense literary debt which we owe to
him, we can only regard as a renegade and a sycophant, did not choose to
make any allusion to facts which were even remotely connected with the
life of Christ” (Life of Christ, pp. 22, 23).

A more absurd reason than the first advanced by Farrar it is difficult to
conceive. The second, that it was a matter of too little consequence to
record, an explanation which other Christian apologists have assigned, is as
unreasonable as it is heartless. The silence of Nikolaus, who wrote of Herod
after his death, is also significant, and the excuse offered by Farrar that he
omitted it because he was the friend of Herod, even if admitted, cannot
apply to Josephus, who abhorred the memory of this monarch. The
contention that Josephus purposely ignored the existence of Christ because
he saw in him a menace to his faith is childish. Jesus Christ, admitting his
existence, had made no history to record. His birth was attended by no
prodigies, and there was nothing in his advent to excite the fear or envy of a
king. Josephus mentions no Herodian massacre at Bethlehem because none
occurred. Had Herod slain a single child in the manner stated the fact would
be attested by a score of authors whose writings are extant. Herod did not
slay one babe. This story is false.

Herod’s massacre of the infants of Bethlehem and the escape of Jesus was
probably suggested by Kansa’s massacre of the infants of Matura and the
escape of Krishna. Pharaoh’s slaughter of the first born in Egypt may also
have suggested it.

61

What was the real cause of Herod’s massacre?

Matthew: The visit of the wise men and the disclosures made by them (ii,
1–16 ).

These wise men, it is claimed, were under divine guidance. In view of this
terrible slaughter their visit must be regarded as a divine blunder.

62

In the massacre of the innocents what prophecy was fulfilled?

Matthew: “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the
prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and
weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would
not be comforted, because they are not” (ii, 17, 18 ).

This so-called prophecy is in Jeremiah xxxi, 15 . It was written at the time
of the Babylonian captivity and refers to the captive Jews. In the next verse
Jeremiah says: “They shall come again from the land of the enemy.”

63

When Herod died what did the Lord command Joseph to do?

“Arise, and take the young child and his mother and go into the land of
Israel, for they are dead which sought the young child’s life” (Matthew ii,
20 ).

“And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return to Egypt: for all the
men are dead which sought thy life” (Exodus iv, 19 ).

64

The sojourn of Joseph and Mary with Jesus in Egypt was in fulfillment of
what prophecy?

Matthew: That “spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt
have I called my son” (ii, 15 ).

This may be found in Hosea xi, 1 , and clearly refers to the exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt.

65

Jesus was subsequently taken to Nazareth. Why?

Matthew: “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, He
shall be called a Nazarene” (ii, 23 ).

The Bible contains no such prophecy. Fleetwood admits that “the words are
not to be found” in “the prophetical writings,” and Farrar says, “It is well
known that no such passage occurs in any extant prophecy” (Life of Christ,
p. 33). The only passage to which the above can refer is Judges xiii, 5 .
Here the child referred to was not to be called a Nazarene, but a Nazarite,
and Matthew knew that “Nazarene” and “Nazarite” were no more
synonymous than “Jew” and “priest.” A Nazarene was a native of Nazareth;

a Nazarite was one consecrated to the service of the Lord. Matthew likewise
knew that this Nazarite referred to in Judges was Samson.

66

Had Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth previous to the birth of Jesus?

Luke: They had.

Matthew: They had not.

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, unto
the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, ... to be taxed with Mary his
espoused wife.... And when they had performed all things according to the
law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth”
(Luke ii, 4, 5 , 39 ).

“When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night,
and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod.... But when
Herod was dead, ... he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and
came into the land of Israel. And when he heard that Archelaus did reign in
the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; notwithstanding,
being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth” (Matthew ii, 14–23 ).

According to Luke their home was in Nazareth of Galilee; according to
Matthew their home was in Bethlehem of Judea. Luke states that they
merely visited Bethlehem to be enrolled for taxation and fulfill a certain
Messianic prophecy. Matthew states that after the flight into Egypt and the
death of Herod they were returning to Judea when fearing Archelaus they
turned aside into Galilee to avoid this ruler and fulfill another Messianic
prophecy.

67

How did the parents of Jesus receive the predictions of Simeon concerning
him?

Luke: “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were
spoken of him” (ii, 33 ).

Why should they marvel at the predictions of Simeon when long before
they had been apprised of the same thing by the angel Gabriel?

68

Does the name “Joseph” belong in the text quoted above?

It does not. The correct reading is: “And his father and his mother were
marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him.” It declares
Joseph to be the father of Jesus, and as this did not harmonize with the story
of the miraculous conception the makers of our version substituted
“Joseph” for “father.”

69

What does Luke say regarding the infancy of John and Jesus?

“And the child [John] grew and waxed strong in spirit” (i, 80 ).

“And the child [Jesus] grew and waxed strong in spirit” (ii, 40 ).

Between the growth of the man John and the growth of the God Jesus there
is, according to the Evangelist, no difference, and the growth of each is
identical with that of the demi-god Samson.

70

What custom did Jesus’s parents observe?

Luke: “His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the
passover” (ii, 41 ).

The preceding verse (40 ) shows that Luke means every year following the
birth of Jesus. In the succeeding verse (42 ) it is clearly implied that Jesus
always accompanied them. It is impossible to reconcile this statement of
Luke, who evidently knows nothing of the enmity of Herod and Archelaus,
with the statements of Matthew who declares them to have been his mortal
enemies.

71

On one of these occasions where did they find him?

Luke: “They found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors,
both hearing them, and asking them questions” (ii, 46 ).

Not until the time of Gamaliel, who lived as late as the middle of the first
century, was a child allowed to sit in the presence of the rabbis. He was
always required to stand, and those acquainted with the Jewish history of
that age know that the rabbis were the most rigid sticklers for ecclesiastical
formalities, the slightest breach of which was never tolerated. The author of
the third Gospel is familiar with the later, but not with the earlier custom.

72

What was the medium of communication through which the will of Heaven
was revealed to the participants in this drama?

Matthew: A dream (i, 20 ; ii, 12, 13, 19, 22 ).

Luke: An angel (i, 11 , 26 ; ii, 9 ).

In Matthew every message respecting the child Jesus is communicated by
means of a dream; in Luke every announcement is made through the agency
of an angel. Yet, after all, these Evangelists differ only in terms; for Luke’s
angels are created out of the same stuff that Matthew’s dreams are made of,
and the world is fast coming to a realization of the fact that this whole
theological structure, founded on sleepers’ dreams and angels’ tales, is but
“The baseless fabric of a vision.”

CHAPTER V.

The Ministry of Christ.

73

When, and at what age, did Jesus begin his ministry?

Luke: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (iii, 1 ). “Jesus
himself began to be about thirty years of age” (23 ).

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, who began his reign in August, 14 A. D.,
Jesus, according to Matthew, was at least thirty-three years of age;
according to Luke, about twenty-two.

Regarding this subject, Dr. Geikie writes as follows: “The age of Jesus at
his entrance on his public work has been variously estimated. Ewald
supposes that he was about thirty-four, fixing his birth three years before the
death of Herod. Wieseler, on the contrary, believes him to have been in his
thirty-first year, setting his birth a few months before Herod’s death.
Bunsen, Anger, Winer, Schurer, and Renan agree with this. Lichtenstein
makes him thirty-two. Hausrath and Keim, on the other hand, think that he
began his ministry in the year A. D. 34, but they do not give any supposed
date for his birth, though if that of Ewald be taken as a medium he must
have been forty years old, while, if Wieseler’s date be preferred, he would
only have been thirty-seven.... Amidst such difference, exactness is
impossible” (Life of Christ, vol. i, pp. 455, 456).

74

John the Baptist is said to have been the person sent to announce the
mission of Christ. Who was John the Baptist?

Jesus: “This is Elias, which was for to come” (Matthew xi, 14 ).

John: “And they asked him [John], what then? Art thou Elias? And he saith,
I am not” (i, 21 ).

A question of veracity between Jesus and John.

75

The advent of John was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Mark: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before
thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee” (i, 2 ).

This passage is quoted from Malachi (iii, 1 ): God threatens to destroy the
world, and says (iv, 5 ), “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” John expressly
declared that he was not Elijah (Elias), and the destruction of the world did
not follow his appearance.

76

What was predicted concerning John?

“He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his
mother’s womb” (Luke i, 15 ).

For the above Luke was indebted to the biographer of Samson. “Both
[Samson and John] were to be consecrated to God from the womb, and the
same diet was prescribed for both.”—Strauss.

77

When the conception of John was announced what punishment was
inflicted upon Zacharias for his doubt?

Luke: “And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in
the presence of God; ... And behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to
speak, until the day that these things be performed” (i, 19, 20 ).

This was evidently suggested by a passage in Daniel: “And when he
[Gabriel] had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground,
and I became dumb” (x, 15 ).

78

Where was John baptizing when he announced his mission to the Jews?

John (New Ver.): “In Bethany beyond Jordan” (i, 28 ).

Bethany was a suburb of Jerusalem and was not beyond Jordan.

The Authorized Version reads “Bethabara,” conceded to be an interpolation,
regarding which Geikie says: “The most ancient MSS. read Bethany instead
of Bethabara, but no site of that name is now known on the Jordan.
Bethabara was introduced into the text by Origen” (Life of Christ, vol. i, p.
566).

79

How old was Jesus when John began his ministry?

Luke: “About thirty years of age” (iii, 2, 3 , 23 ).

Matthew: “In those days [when Jesus’ parents brought him out of Egypt and
settled in Nazareth, he being then about two years of age] came John the
Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea” (ii, 19–23 ; iii, 1 ).

Matthew, it is claimed, was written only ten or twenty years after Jesus’
baptism. If so, the phrase “in those days” clearly implies that he was but a
child when John began his ministry. If the phrase was intended to
comprehend a period of thirty years this gospel, it must be admitted, was
written at least one hundred years after the event described.

80

Were Jesus and John related?

Luke: They were, their mothers being cousins (i, 36 ).

Mary had visited the mother of John, and each was acquainted with the
character of the other’s child. John before his birth is declared to have

recognized and acknowledged the divinity of the unborn Jesus (Luke i, 41–
44 ). Yet, according to the Fourth Gospel, at the beginning of Jesus’
ministry John said, “I know him not” (i, 33 ).

81

When Jesus desired John to baptize him, what did the latter do?

Matthew: “John forbade him saying, I have need to be baptized of thee” (iii,
14 ).

According to Matthew, John was not only acquainted with Jesus, but
cognizant of his divine mission, which cannot be harmonized with his
statement in the Fourth Gospel.

Dr. Geikie admits that John and Jesus were strangers to each other. He says:
“Though cousins, the Baptist and the Son of Mary had never seen each
other” (Life of Christ, vol. i, p. 389).

This is not only a rejection of Matthew’s statement, but a repudiation of the
first chapter of Luke, one of the most important chapters of the New
Testament; for it is utterly impossible for reason to harmonize these alleged
revelations concerning the miraculous conceptions and divine missions of
John and Jesus to their parents and the fact that John remained for thirty
years in absolute ignorance of Jesus’ existence.

82

What did John say regarding Jesus?

“He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear” (Matthew iii, 11 ).

“There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am
not worthy to stoop down and unloose” (Mark i, 7 ).

83

What other testimony did he bear concerning Jesus?

“And of his fulness have all we received” (John i, 16 ).

This was uttered prior to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and before he had
been baptized with the Holy Ghost. At this time “his fulness” had not been
received, and the words are an anachronism.

84

At Jesus’ baptism there came a voice from heaven. To whom were its words
addressed?

Matthew: To those who stood by. “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased” (iii, 17 ).

Luke: To Jesus himself. “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well
pleased” (iii, 22 ).

85

John heard this voice from heaven; did he believe it?

Matthew: He evidently did not; for he afterwards sent two of his disciples to
ascertain if Jesus were the Christ. “Now when John had heard in prison the
words of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he
that should come or do we look for another?” (xi, 2, 3 ).

86

Do all the Evangelists record Jesus’ baptism by John?

They do not. According to the Synoptics, John’s baptism of Jesus was the
initial act in his ministry, and one of the most important events in his career.
But of this baptism the author of the Fourth Gospel knows nothing. In
regard to this omission the author of “Supernatural Religion” says:
“According to the Synoptics, Jesus is baptized by John, and as he goes out
of the water the Holy Ghost descends upon him like a dove. The Fourth
Gospel knows nothing of the baptism, and makes John the Baptist narrate
vaguely that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove and rest upon
Jesus, as a sign previously indicated to him by God by which to recognize
the Lamb of God” (p. 681).

87

With what did John say Jesus would baptize?

Mark and John: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark i, 8 ;
John i, 33 ).

Matthew and Luke: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with
fire” (Matt. iii, 11 ; Luke iii, 16 ).

88

How many were baptized by John?

Matthew and Mark: “Jerusalem and all Judea” (Matt. iii, 5 ; Mark i, 5 ).

John, if the account in Josephus is to be credited, made some converts; but
all the inhabitants of Judea were not baptized by him.

Is John the Baptist a historical character? Aside from the anonymous and
apocryphal writings of the church, which appeared in the second century,
the only evidence of his existence is a passage in Josephus (Antiquities, B.
xviii, ch. v, sec. 2). The language of this passage, while not avowedly
Christian like the passage pertaining to Christ, is yet of such a character as
to excite suspicion regarding its genuineness. Its position strongly suggests
an interpolation. Josephus gives an account of the troubles that arose
between Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, and Aretas, king of Arabia
Petrea. Herod had married the daughter of Aretas; but becoming infatuated
with Herodias, his sister-in-law, he resolved to put her away and marry
Herodias. Discovering his intentions his wife obtained permission to visit
her father, who when he had been informed of Herod’s perfidy, made war
upon him and defeated him in battle. Herod appealed to the Emperor
Tiberius, who was his friend, and who ordered Vitellius, governor of Syria,
to invade the dominions of Aretas and capture or slay him. I quote the
concluding portion of section 1 and the opening sentence of section 3 of the
chapter containing this history, separating the two with an ellipsis:

“So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who, being very angry at
the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and
either to take him alive, and bring him in bonds, or to kill him, and send
him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of
Syria.... So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him
two legions of armed men.”

It will be readily observed that the two sections are closely connected, the
one naturally and logically following the other. Yet between these two
closely connected sections, the section containing the account of John the
Baptist is inserted.

89

Who held the office of high priest at the time Jesus began his ministry?

Luke: “Annas and Caiaphas” (iii, 2 ).

If the writer were to declare that Washington and Monroe were presidents
of the United States at the same time it would be no more erroneous than
the declaration of Luke that Annas and Caiaphas were high priests at the
same time. Two priests never held this office jointly. Caiaphas was high
priest at this time, and three others had held the office previous to him and
subsequent to Annas. Referring to Pontius Pilate’s predecessor, Gratus, who
was procurator of Judea from 15 to 26 A. D., Josephus says:

“This man deprived Ananus [Annas] of the high priesthood, and appointed
Ishmael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little
time, and ordained Eleazer, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest
before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus
deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of
Camithus, and, when he had possessed the dignity no longer than a year,

Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor” (Antiquities B. xviii, ch. ii, sec.
2).

90

Who was tetrarch of Abilene at this time?

Luke: Lysanias (iii, 1 ).

Lysanias was put to death at the instigation of Cleopatra sixty years before
Jesus began his ministry. “She [Cleopatra] hurried Antony on perpetually to
deprive others of their dominions, and give them to her; and as she went
over Syria with him, she contrived to get it into her possession; so he slew
Lysanias” (Josephus, Antiq., B. xv, ch. iv, sec. 1).

At the time mentioned by Luke the territory of Abila, or Abilene, was no
longer a tetrarchy.

91

Where was Jesus three days after he began his ministry?

Synoptics: In the wilderness fasting (Matt. iv, 1 ; Mark i, 9–13 ; Luke iv,
1 ).

John: At a wedding in Cana, feasting (i , ii ).

92

Was he led, or driven by the spirit into the wilderness?

Matthew and Luke: “Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the
wilderness” (Matt. iv, 1 ; Luke iv, 1 ).

Mark: “And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness” (i,
12 ).

93

When did the temptation take place?

Mark: During the forty days’ fast. “And he was there in the wilderness forty
days tempted of Satan” (i, 13 ).

Matthew: After the fast. “And when he had fasted forty days and forty
nights ... the tempter came to him” (iv, 2, 3 ).

94

During the temptation the devil is said to have set him on the temple. On
what part of the temple did he set him?

Matthew and Luke: “On a pinnacle” (Matt. iv, 5 ; Luke iv, 9 ).

The indefinite article “a” clearly implies that the temple had several
pinnacles, whereas it had but one. After eighteen hundred years the Holy

Ghost discovered his mistake and moved the Oxford revisers to substitute
“the” for “a.”

95

What did the devil next do?

Matthew: “The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world” (iv, 8 ). It must have been “an
exceedingly high mountain” to have enabled him to see the kingdoms of the
opposite hemisphere.

96

What did the devil propose?

“All these things will I give thee [Jesus], if thou wilt fall down and worship
me” (Matthew iv, 9 ).

If Jesus was the Christ, and Christ was God, as claimed, who owned “these
things,” he or the devil? Think of a tramp offering you a quit-claim deed to
your home for a meal.

97

Where did the devil take him first, to the temple, or to the mountain?

Matthew: To the temple (iv, 5–8 ).

Luke: To the mountain (iv, 5–9 ).

Concerning this discrepancy, Farrar says: “The order of the temptation is
given differently by St. Matthew and St. Luke, St. Matthew placing second
the scene on the pinnacle of the temple, and St. Luke the vision of the
kingdoms of the world. Both orders cannot be right” (Life of Christ, p. 70).

Some of the ablest Christian scholars have refused to accept the Temptation
as historical. Farrar says: “From Origen down to Schleiermacher some have
regarded it as a vision or allegory—the symbolic description of a purely
inward struggle; and even so literal a commentator as Calvin has embraced
this view” (Ibid, p. 65).

98

Had John been cast into prison when Jesus began his ministry?

Matthew: He had.

John: He had not.

Matthew says that immediately after his temptation, and before he began
his ministry, “Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison” (iv, 12 ).
Then “he departed into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in
Capernaum” (12, 13 ). “From that time Jesus began to preach” (17 ). This
was the beginning of his ministry.

According to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus had called his disciples; had traveled
over Galilee and Judea; had baptized (iii, 22 ); had performed miracles (ii,
1–11 , 23 ; iii, 2 ); had held controversies with the Jews (ii, 18–21 ; iii,

1–21 ); had attended the Passover (ii, 13–23 ); had purged the temple (ii,
13–16 ); and after all these things “John was not yet cast into prison” (iii,
24 ).

99

Name the Twelve Apostles.

Matthew. Mark. Luke.
Simon Peter Simon Peter Simon Peter
Andrew Andrew Andrew
James James James
John John John
Philip Philip Philip
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew
Thomas Thomas Thomas
Matthew Matthew Matthew
James Less James Less James Less
LEBBEUS THADDEUS JUDAS
Simon Simon Simon
Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot

John does not name the Twelve Apostles and this important omission is
admitted to be a grave defect in the Fourth Gospel.

100

Relate the circumstances attending the calling of Peter.

Matthew: “And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren,
Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for
they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you
fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him” (iv,
18–20 ).

Luke: “He [Jesus] stood by the lake of Gennesaret, and saw two ships
standing by the lake; but the fishermen were gone out of them and were
washing their nets. And he entered into one of the ships, which was
Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And
he sat down and taught the people out of the ship. Now when he had left
speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your
nets for a draught” (v, 1–4 ).

“And when they had this done they inclosed a great multitude of fishes”
(6 ).

“And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch
men. And when they [Peter, James and John] had brought their ships to
land, they forsook all, and followed him” (10, 11 ).

John: “Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and
looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And
the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus” (i, 35–37 ).

“They came and saw where he [Jesus] dwelt, and abode with him that
day.... One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was
Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and
saith unto him, We have found the Messias.... And he brought him to Jesus”
(40–42 ).

Here are three accounts of the calling of Peter, each entirely at variance
with the others.

101

In what country were they when Peter was called?

Synoptics: In Galilee.

John (Old Ver.): In Perea (i, 28–42 ).

Bethabara and the territory beyond Jordan were in Perea.

John (New Ver.): In Judea.

Bethany and all the country surrounding it were in Judea.

102

Who did Jesus declare Peter to be?

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona” (John i, 42 ).

“Simon, son of Jonas” (John xxi, 15 ).

“Thou art Simon the son of John” (John, New Ver., i, 42 ; xxi, 15 ).

There is no relation whatever between “Jona,” or “Jonas,” and “John.” Jona
(Jonah), or Jonas, means a dove; John means the grace of God.

103

Jesus gave Simon (Peter) the name of Cephas. What meaning did he attach
to the word Cephas?

“Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” (John i,
42 ).

“Thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)” (Ibid, New
Ver.).

Here Jesus is represented as interpreting the meaning of an Aramaic word,
with which his hearers were familiar, by the use of a Greek word of whose
meaning they were ignorant, the incongruity of which must be apparent to
every reader.

104

When were James and John called?

Matthew: After Peter was called.

After giving an account of the calling of Peter and Andrew, Matthew says:
“And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending
their nets; and he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him” (iv, 21, 22 ).

Luke: At the time that Peter was called.

Luke states that James and John were partners of Peter, and with him on the
lake, in another boat, when the miraculous draught of fishes was made, that
both boats were filled with the fish, “And when they [Peter, James and
John] had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him”
(v, 1–11 ).

105

Where was Jesus when he called Peter, James and John?

Matthew: “Walking by the sea of Galilee” (iv, 18–21 ).

Luke: On the lake in a ship (v, 1–11 ).

In regard to Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the calling of Peter, James
and John, Strauss says: “Neither will bear the other to precede, or to follow
it—in short, they exclude each other” (Leben Jesu, p. 337).

106

Was Andrew called when Peter was called?

Matthew and Mark: He was (Matt. iv, 18–20 ; Mark i, 16–18 ).

According to Luke, Andrew was not called when Peter was called, but after
he was called. According to John (i, 35–42 ) Andrew was the first to follow
Jesus.

107

Who was called from the receipt of custom?

Matthew: “A man named Matthew” (ix, 9 ).

Luke: “A publican named Levi” (v, 27 ).

Orthodox scholars claim that Matthew and Levi are the same person. Dr.
Hooykaas does not believe that they are the same, and does not believe that
any one of the Apostles was called from the receipt of custom. He says: “It
is in reality very unlikely that Levi and Matthew are the same man, or that
one of the Twelve was a tax-gatherer” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 201).

108

Who was the mother of James the Less and Joses?

In the earlier parts of their narratives, Matthew (xiii, 55 ) and Mark (vi,
3 ) declare them to be sons of the Virgin Mary and brothers of Jesus. Paul
(Gal. i, 19 ) affirms that James was the brother of Jesus. Later Matthew
(xxvii, 56 ) and Mark (xv, 40 ) state that James and Joses were sons of
Mary, the sister of the Virgin.

109

Who was their father?

If they were sons of the Virgin Mary, Joseph must have been their father.
But Matthew (x, 3 ) and Mark (iii, 18 ) state that James the Less was “the
son of Alpheus.” According to John (compare John xix, 25 with Matthew
xxvii, 56 ) Cleophas was their father.

Referring to this and the preceding discrepancy, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary”
says: “This is one of the most difficult questions in the Gospel history.”

110

Were Matthew and James the Less brothers?

It is not admitted that they were. Yet it is claimed that Matthew and Levi
were the same; Mark (ii, 14 ) declares that Levi was “the son of Alpheus”;
while both Matthew and Mark (Matt. x, 3 ; Mark iii, 18 ) declare that
James was “the son of Alpheus.”

111

To what city did John belong, and where was it located?

John: “Bethsaida of Galilee” (xii, 21 ).

John states that Peter was a resident of Bethsaida (i, 44 ), and as John and
Peter were partners (Luke v, 10 ), they must have belonged to the same

city. But Bethsaida was not in Galilee, but in Gaulonitis. Hence if John
wrote the Gospel ascribed to him, he did not know the location of his own
city.

It is remarkable with what ease theologians harmonize the most discordant
statements. In this case the only thing required was, in drawing the map of
Palestine, to make two dots instead of one and write the word Bethsaida
twice.

112

Who was the tenth apostle?

Mark: Thaddeus (iii, 18 ).

Matthew: “Lebbeus, whose surname was Thaddeus” (x, 3 ).

In the earlier manuscripts of Matthew, the words, “whose surname was
Thaddeus,” are not to be found. Subsequent transcribers added them to
reconcile his Gospel with Mark.

113

How many of the apostles bore the name of Judas?

Matthew and Mark: But one (Matt. x, 1–4 ; Mark iii, 14–19 ).

Luke: Two (vi, 16 ).

114

One of these was Judas Iscariot. Who was the other?

Luke (Old Ver.): “The brother of James” (vi, 16 ).

Luke (New Ver.): “The son of James.”

115

Name the chief apostles.

Synoptics: Peter, James and John.

John: Peter and John.

In the Synoptics, Peter, James and John constitute an inner circle or group
who are with their master on every important occasion. In John this group is
limited to Peter and John.

116

Who was Jesus’ favorite apostle?

Synoptics: Peter.

John: John.

From the Synoptics the conclusion is inevitable that if there was one
disciple whom Jesus esteemed higher than the others it was Peter whom he
is declared to have chosen for the head of his church. John, on the other
hand, assuming that he wrote the Fourth Gospel, as claimed, takes frequent
occasion to impress us with the idea that he was the bright particular star in
the Apostolic galaxy. Four times (xiii, 23 ; xix, 26 ; xx, 2 ; xxi, 20 ) he
declares himself to be “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

If John wrote the Fourth Gospel this self-glorification proves him to have
been a despicable egotist; if he did not write it the book is a forgery. The
first assumption, if correct, impairs its credibility; the latter destroys its
authenticity.

117

Is the Apostle James mentioned in John?

He is not. This omission is the more remarkable when we remember that
James was not only one of the chief apostles, but the brother of John.

Respecting this omission, Strauss says: “Is it at all probable that the real
John would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims of his brother
James to special notice? and is not such an omission rather indicative of a
late Hellenistic author, who scarcely had heard the name of the brother so
early martyred?” (Leben Jesu, p. 353.)

118

What other disciples besides the Twelve did Jesus send out?

Luke: “After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent
them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he
himself would come” (x, 1 ).

In not one of the other twenty-six books of the New Testament is this
important feature of Christ’s ministry mentioned. The seventy elders of
Moses doubtless suggested it. “And the Lord came down in a cloud, and
spoke unto him [Moses], and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave
it unto the seventy elders” (Num. xi, 25 ).

Seventy was a sacred number with the Jews and is of frequent occurrence in
their writings. “And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were
seventy souls” (Ex. i, 5 ). Abimelech had “seventy brethren” (Jud. ix,
56 ). “Ahab had seventy sons” (2 K. x. 1 ). Isaiah prophesied that “Tyre
shall be forgotten seventy years” (xxiii, 15 ). Jeremiah prophesied that the
Jews were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (xxv, 11 ). In
Ezekiel’s vision there stood before the idols of Israel “seventy men of the
ancients of the house of Israel” (viii, 11 ). In Daniel’s vision “seventy
weeks are determined upon thy people and upon the holy city [Jerusalem]”
(ix, 24 ).

119

What charge did Jesus make to his disciples?

“Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not” (Matt. x, 5 ).

“Then cometh he [with his disciples] to a city of Samaria” (John iv, 5 ).
“And he abode there two days” (40 ).

120

Did Jesus have a habitation of his own?

Matthew: “And leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum” (iv,
13 ).

Mark: “Jesus sat at meat in his [Jesus’] house” (ii, 15 ).

Luke: “And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have
nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (ix, 58 ).

121

His residence in Capernaum was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali, by way of the
sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in
darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of
death is light sprung up” (iv, 15, 16 ).

The “prophecy” which Matthew pretends to quote is in Isaiah (ix, 1, 2 ),
and reads as follows: “Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in
her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulon, and
the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict her by way
of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked
in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwell in the land of the shadow
of death, upon them hath the light shined.”

Matthew both misquotes and misapplies this passage. He eliminates the
facts and alters the language to make a Messianic prophecy. The words
were not intended as a prophecy. The events mentioned by Isaiah had
occurred when he wrote. The “great light,” which they had already seen,
referred to his own work in destroying witchcraft and idolatry.

122

Were Zebulon and Nephthali situated “beyond Jordan,” as stated?

They were not. “Beyond Jordan” means east of the Jordan, which formed
the eastern boundary of Palestine. Zebulon and Nephthali were both
situated west of the Jordan.

123

Were Peter, Andrew, James and John with Jesus when he taught in the
synagogue at Capernaum?

Mark: They were (i, 16–21 ).

Luke: They were not; for they had not yet been called (iv, 31 ; v, 1–11 ).

124

Did Jesus perform many miracles in Galilee at the beginning of his
ministry?

Matthew: “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues,
and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of
sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went
throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed
with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and
he healed them” (iv, 23, 24 ).

Mark: “He healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out
many devils” (i, 34 ).

Luke: “All they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto
him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them. And
devils also came out of many” (iv, 40, 41 ).

John declares that his curing the nobleman’s son (iv, 46–54 ), which was
not until the second mission in Galilee, was the second miracle he
performed there, his miracle at Cana being the only one he performed
during the first period of his ministry. According to this Evangelist (iv, 45 )
all the notoriety he had at this time in Galilee, had been achieved, not by
any miracles he had performed in that country, but through the reports of
some Galileans who had seen his works at Jerusalem in Judea.

In regard to these conflicting statements of the Evangelists, Farrar says: “At
this point we are again met by difficulties in the chronology, which are not
only serious, but to the certain solution of which there appears to be no
clew” (Life of Christ, p. 124).

125

Did he perform any miracles before he called his disciples?

Luke: He did (iv, 40, 41 ; v, 1–11 ).

John: “And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage [at
Cana, where he turned the water into wine].... This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana” (ii, 1–11 )

Luke declares that he had performed many miracles before the first
disciples were called; John declares that his disciples had been called and
were with him when he performed his first miracle.

126

When was the miraculous draught of fishes made?

Luke: At the beginning of his ministry (v, 6 ).

John: Not until after his death and resurrection (xxi, 11 ).

127

What accident was caused by the enormous draught of fishes?

Luke: “Their net brake” (v, 6 ).

John: “For all there were so many, yet was not the net broken” (xxi, 11 ).

In Luke and John we have two different versions of a Pythagorian legend.
After comparing and noting the agreements and variations of the three

versions of the legend, Strauss says:

“If there be a mind that, not perceiving in the narratives we have compared
the finger-marks of tradition, and hence the legendary character of these
evangelical anecdotes, still leans to the historical interpretation, whether
natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of the true
character both of legend and of history, of the natural and the supernatural”
(Leben Jesu, p. 339).

128

How long did the Jews say it took to build the temple?

“Forty and six years was this temple in building” (John ii, 20 ).

One year and six months was this temple in building.

Josephus (B. xv, ch. xi) gives a full account of the building of the temple.
Of its commencement, he says: “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of
his reign, and after the acts already mentioned, undertook a very great work
—that is, to build of himself the temple of God” (sec. 1). Concerning its
completion, he says: “But the temple itself was built by the priests in a year
and six months—upon which all the people were full of joy; and presently
they returned thanks, in the first place, to God; and in the next place, for the
alacrity the king had shown. They feasted and celebrated this rebuilding of
the temple” (sec. 6).

The building of the temple was begun in 19 B. C.; it was finished and
dedicated in 17 B. C.

129

Where did Jesus deliver his so-called Sermon on the Mount?

Matthew: “He went up into a mountain” (v, 1 ).

Luke: “He came down with them, and stood in the plain” (vi, 17 ).

Both Matthew and Luke represent him as being on a mountain; but while
Matthew has him go up into the mountain to deliver his sermon, Luke has
him come down out of the mountain to deliver it.

In regard to this discrepancy, the Dutch theologian, Dr. Hooykaas, says:
“The Evangelist [Matthew] had a special motive for fixing upon a mountain
for this purpose. He intended to represent Jesus laying down the
fundamental laws of the kingdom of heaven as the counterpart of Moses
who promulgated the constitution of the Old Covenant from Mount Sinai.
Luke, on the other hand, not wishing Jesus to be regarded as a second
Moses, or another lawgiver, just as deliberately makes the Master deliver
this discourse on a plain” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 141, 142).

130

Did he deliver his sermon sitting or standing?

Matthew: “He was set” (v, 1 ).

Luke: He “stood” (vi, 17 ).

131

Repeat the Beatitudes which are common to both Evangelists.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”
(Matthew v, 3 ).

“Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke vi, 20 ).

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh” (Luke).

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they
shall be filled” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye which hunger now: for ye shall be filled” (Luke).

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall
say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake” (Matthew).

“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you
from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil
for the Son of man’s sake” (Luke).

“Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so
persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matthew).

“Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in
heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets” (Luke).

The agreements between the two versions of this sermon, of which the
foregoing are a part, are ample to prove them to be reports of the same
discourse; while the variations are certainly sufficient to disprove the
infallibility of the evangelistic reporters.

Whether it be historical or fabricated—whether Jesus delivered the sermon
or not—Matthew and Luke have given merely different versions of the
same composition. The exordiums are the same; the perorations are the
same—both end with the illustration of the men, one of whom built his

house on a frail, the other on a firm foundation; the doctrines enunciated are
substantially the same; while the words in which they are clothed proclaim
a common origin. Matthew’s version is longer than Luke’s; either Matthew
has added to, or Luke has taken from the original report of the sermon.

132

Repeat the Golden Rule.

“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so
to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew vii, 12 ; Luke vi,
31 ).

Seventy years before Christ, Hillel, the Jewish rabbi, said:

“Do not to others what you would not have them do to you. This is the
substance of the law.”

Rabbi Hirsch says: “Before Jesus, the Golden Rule was one of the
household sayings of Israel.”

133

Repeat the Lord’s Prayer.

According to Matthew.

Old Version. New Version.
“Our Father which art in heaven, “Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom Hallowed be thy name. Thy
come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is kingdom come. Thy will be done,
in heaven. Give us this day our daily as in heaven, so on earth. Give us
bread. And forgive us our debts as we this day our daily bread. And
forgive our debtors. And lead us not forgive us our debts, as we also
into temptation, but deliver us from have forgiven our debtors. And
evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the bring us not into temptation, but
power, and the glory, for ever. Amen” deliver us from the evil one.”
(vi, 9–13 ).

According to Luke.

Old Version. New Version.
“Our Father which art in heaven, “Father, Hallowed be thy name.
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom Thy kingdom come. Give us day
come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so by day our daily bread. And
in earth. Give us day by day our daily forgive us our sins; for we
bread. And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one
also forgive every one that is indebted to that is indebted to us. And bring
us. And lead us not into temptation: but us not into temptation.”
deliver us from evil” (xi, 2–4 ).

The commonly accepted version of the Lord’s Prayer is the Authorized
Version of Matthew. This version is admitted to be grossly inaccurate. It
contains sixty-six words. The Revised Version of Matthew contains but
fifty-five. Twenty-four words either do not belong to the prayer, or have
been misplaced; while words which do belong to it have been omitted. If
the custodians of the Christian Scriptures have permitted the prayer of their
Lord to be corrupted to this extent, what reliance can be placed upon the
genuineness of the remainder of these writings?

The Lord’s Prayer, like so many more of the precepts and discourses
ascribed to Jesus, is borrowed. Dr. Hardwicke, of England, says: “The so-

called ‘Lord’s Prayer’ was learned by the Messiah as the ‘Kadish’ from the
Talmud.” The Kadish, as translated by a Christian scholar, Rev. John
Gregorie, is as follows:

“Our Father which art in heaven, be gracious to us, O Lord, our God;
hallowed be thy name, and let the remembrance of thee be glorified in
heaven above and in the earth here below. Let thy kingdom reign over us
now and forever. The holy men of old said, Remit and forgive unto all men
whatsoever they have done against me. And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil thing. For thine is the kingdom, and thou shalt reign
in glory for ever and for evermore.”

The eminent Swiss theologian, Dr. Wetstein, says: “It is a curious fact that
the Lord’s Prayer may be constructed almost verbatim out of the Talmud.”

The Sermon on the Mount is derived largely from the teachings of the
Essenes, a Jewish sect to which Jesus is believed by many to have
belonged.

134

When and where was the Lord’s Prayer delivered?

Matthew: During his Sermon on the Mount, before the multitude.

Luke: At a later period, before the disciples alone (xi, 1 ).

135

Was the Sermon on the Mount delivered before Matthew (Levi in Mark and
Luke) was called from the receipt of custom?

Matthew: It was (v, 7 ; ix, 9 ).

Luke: It was not (v, 27 ; vi, 20 ).

136

When did Jesus cleanse the leper?

Matthew: After the Sermon on the Mount (v, 1 ; viii, 1–4 ).

Luke: Before the Sermon on the Mount (v, 12–14 ; vi, 20–49 ).

137

When did he cure Peter’s mother-in-law?

Matthew: After he cleansed the leper (viii, 2, 3 ; 14, 15 ).

Mark and Luke: Before he cleansed the leper (Mark i, 29–31 ; 40–42 ;
Luke iv, 38, 39 ; v, 12, 13 ).

138

Was this before or after Peter was called to the ministry?

Luke: Before (iv, 38, 39 ; v, 10 ).

Matthew and Mark: After (Matt. iv, 18, 19 ; viii, 14, 15 ; Mark i, 16, 17 ;
30, 31 ).

139

Were James and John with Jesus when he performed this cure?

Mark: They were (i, 29 ).

Luke: They were not. They had not yet been called (iv. 38, 39 ; v, 10, 11 ).

140

When was the centurion’s servant healed?

Matthew: Between the cleansing of the leper and the curing of Peter’s
mother-in-law (viii, 2–14 ).

Luke: Not until after both these cures had been performed (iv, 38, 39 ; v,
12, 13 ; vii, 1–10 ).

141

Who came for Jesus?

Matthew: The centurion came himself (viii, 5 ).

Luke: The centurion did not come himself, but sent the Jewish elders for
him (vii, 2–4 ).

142

Where was he when he performed this miracle?

Matthew and Luke: In Capernaum (Matt. viii, 5 ; Luke vii, 1 ).

John: In Cana (iv, 46 ).

According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was in Capernaum while the patient
lived elsewhere; according to John, Jesus was in Cana while the patient
lived in Capernaum. John says he was a nobleman’s son, but all critics (as
well as the Archbishop of York, in his “Harmony of the Gospels”) agree that
he refers to the same miracle.

143

When did he still the tempest?

Matthew: Before Matthew was called from the receipt of custom (viii, 23–
27 ; ix, 9 ).

Mark: After Matthew (Levi) was called (ii, 14 ; iv, 35–41 ).

144

When did he cast out the devils that entered into the herd of swine?

Matthew: Before Matthew was called to the ministry (viii, 28, 33 ; ix, 9 ).

Mark and Luke: Not until after he was called (Mark ii, 14 ; v, 1–13 ; Luke
v, 27 ; viii, 26–33 ).

145

How many were possessed with devils?

Matthew: “There met him two possessed with devils coming out of the
tombs” (viii, 28 ).

Mark and Luke: “There met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean
spirit” (Mark v, 2 ; Luke viii, 27 ).

146

When asked his name what did the demoniac answer?

“My name is Legion” (Mark v, 9 ).

Concerning this the Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The Four Gospels are written in
Greek, and the word ‘legion’ is Latin; but in Galilee and Perea the people
spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word
‘legion’ would be perfectly unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to
almost everybody in the country” (Christian Records, p. 197).

147

How many swine were there?

Mark: “They were about two thousand” (v, 13 ).

If each hog received a devil there must have been two thousand devils.
Legion must have been a very large man, or they were very little devils.

148

Where did this occur?

Matthew: In “the country of the Gergesenes” (viii, 28 ).

Mark and Luke: In “the country of the Gadarenes” (Mark v, 1 ; Luke viii,
26 ).

It is generally conceded by orthodox critics that it occurred neither in the
country of the Gergesenes nor in the country of the Gadarenes, but in the
country of the Gerasenes. It could not have occurred in the country of the
Gadarenes because it is said to have occurred on the sea shore and Gadara
was situated several miles from the sea.

Voltaire says the story is disproved by the fact that the event is alleged to
have taken place in a country where no swine were kept.

149

Do the Evangelists all agree in regard to the expulsion of demons by Jesus?

The Synoptics abound with these miracles: Matthew viii, 28–34 ; ix, 32–
34; xv, 22–28; xvii, 14–21; Mark i, 21–28 ; v, 1–20; vii, 24–30; ix, 20–29;
Luke iv, 31–37 ; viii, 26–39; ix, 37–42. John never mentions them.

150

What great miracle did Jesus perform at Nain?

Luke: “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a
dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and
much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her he had
compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched
the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say
unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he
delivered him to his mother” (vii, 12–15 ).

The other Evangelists were certainly ignorant of this miracle; for if they had
known of it they could not have omitted it, as it is the most important
miracle related by a Synoptist, and, with one exception, the most important
of all Christ’s miracles.

A miracle almost identical with this is related of Apollonius. Referring to
the two, Baur says: “As according to Luke, it was a young man, the only
son of a widow, who was being carried out of the city; so, in Philostratus, it
is a young maiden already betrothed, whose bier Apollonius meets. The
command to set down the bier, the mere touch, and a few words, are
sufficient here, as there, to bring the dead to life” (Apollonius of Tyana and
Christ, p. 145).

151

In their accounts of his curing the paralytic what parenthetical clause is to
be found in each of the Synoptics?

“(Then saith he to the sick of the palsy)” (Matthew ix, 6 ; Mark ii, 10 ;
Luke v, 24 ).

As the clause is superfluous, this agreement, instead of furnishing proof of
divine inspiration, tends to prove what has already been affirmed, that these
books are not original, but copied, for the most part, from older documents.

152

What effect had the teachings of Jesus upon the people?

Matthew: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (xxii, 33 ).

Mark: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (i, 22 ).

Luke: “They were astonished at his doctrine” (iv, 32 ).

153

What did he say to the people in regard to letting their light shine?

“No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither
under a bushel, but on a candle stick” (Luke, Old Ver., xi, 33 ).

“No man, when he hath lighted a lamp, putteth it in a cellar, neither under
the bushel, but on the stand” (New Ver.).

154

What did he say concerning the way that leads to life?

“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life”
(Matthew, Old Ver., vii, 14 ).

“Narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life” (New
Ver.).

The Old Version has a strait gate and a narrow way; the New Version a
narrow gate and a strait way.

155

Quote the words which relate the calling of Peter.

John: “He [Andrew] first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto
him, We have found the Messias, which is being interpreted the Christ.

“And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou
art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by
interpretation, A stone” (i, 41, 42 ).

The last clause of each is an interpolation.

156

Where was John baptizing when Jesus and his disciples came into Judea?

John: “In Aenon near to Salim” (iii, 22, 23 ).

This is declared by nearly all critics to be a geographical error. No place
corresponding to this existed in Judea.

157

What city of Samaria did Jesus visit?

John: “Then cometh he to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar” (iv,
5 ).

Samaria contained no city of this name. Bible commentators believe that
Shechem is intended.

158

What did his disciples say to him when about to leave Bethany?

“Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee” (John xi, 8 ).

The disciples were themselves Jews, and the above is not the language of a
Jew speaking of his own people, but of a foreigner.

159

Where was he when he dined with publicans and sinners?

Mark: At his own house. “As Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans
and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples” (ii. 15 ).

Luke: At the house of Levi. “And Levi made him a great feast in his own
house; and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat
down with them” (v, 29 ).

160

What did the Pharisees say to his disciples, because they, with Jesus, dined
with publicans and sinners?

“Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?” (Luke v, 30 .)

“Why eateth your master with publicans and sinners?” (Matthew ix, 11 .)

161

Who inquired of Jesus the reason for his disciples not fasting?

Matthew: “Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and
the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?” (ix, 14 .)

Luke: “And they [the scribes and Pharisees] said unto him, why do the
disciples of John fast often, ... and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees;
but thine eat and drink?” (v, 33 .)

162

What did he say when reproved for plucking the ears of corn on the
Sabbath?

“Have ye never read what David did?... How he went into the house of God
in the days of Abiathar, the high priest, and did eat the shew bread?” (Mark
ii, 25, 26 .)

David did not do this “in the days of Abiathar,” but in the days of
Ahimelech. “Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest.... So the
priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the shew
bread” (1 Sam. xxi, 1, 6 ).

163

What did he claim regarding Moses?

“He [Moses] wrote of me” (John v, 46 ).

The passage referred to is quoted in Acts iii, 22 , and may be found in
Deuteronomy xviii, 15 . It alludes to Joshua, the successor of Moses. “The
Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of
thy brethren like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.”

Had Jesus been omniscient he would have known that Moses did not write
this; that it was not written until nearly 800 years after the time of Moses.

164

Jesus is credited with having raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead.
Was she really dead?

Matthew: Jairus said, “My daughter is even now dead” (ix, 18 ).

Mark: He said, “My little daughter lieth at the point of death” (v, 23 ).

Luke: It was reported that “she lay a dying” (viii, 42 ).

According to Matthew, in this miracle he restored the dead to life;
according to Mark and Luke, he merely healed the sick.

165

Who of Christ’s disciples witnessed the raising of Jairus’ daughter?

Mark and Luke: Peter, James and John (Mark v, 37–40 ; Luke viii, 51 ).

John, who alone of his alleged biographers is said to have witnessed this
miracle, is the only one who fails to mention it.

“A proper witness is silent, while an improper witness testifies.”—Bishop
Faustus.

166

What did Jesus say when sending out his Twelve Apostles?

“He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him
that sent me” (Matthew x, 40 ; Luke x, 16 ).

According to John (xiii, 20 ) these words were uttered not at the beginning
of his ministry as stated by Matthew and Luke, but at the Last Supper;
regarding which “Supernatural Religion” says: “It is clear that its insertion
here is a mistake.”

167

What command did he give them respecting the provision of staves?

Matthew and Luke: They were not to provide themselves with staves.
“Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your
journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves” (Matt. x, 9, 10 ;
Luke ix, 3 ).

Mark: “Commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,
save a staff only” (vi, 8 ).

168

When the Samaritans refused to receive him what was said?

Luke: “And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord,
wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume
them even as Elias did?

“But he turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of
spirit ye are of.

“For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
And they went to another village” (ix, 54–56 ).

It is conceded by the best Christian scholars that the words “as Elias did”
and all that follow, excepting “he turned and rebuked them,” are spurious.

169

What did Jesus say to the multitude concerning John the Baptist?

“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven
suffereth violence” (Matthew xi, 12 ).

The words, “from the days of John the Baptist until now,” signify that a
long period of time had elapsed since the days of John. Yet, on the very day
that Jesus is said to have uttered them, he received a visit from the disciples
of John, who was still living (Matthew xi, 2, 3 ).

170

Whose rejection of him provoked the declaration, “A prophet is not without
honor, save in his own country”?

Matthew: “And when he came into his own country [Galilee], he taught
them in their synagogue, ... and they were offended in him. But Jesus said
unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country” (xiii,
54–57 ).

John: “He departed thence, [he had come from Judea and Samaria] and
went into Galilee. For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honor
in his own country. Then when he was come into Galilee, the Galileans
received him” (iv, 43–45 ).

According to Matthew, he was without honor in Galilee; according to John,
he went to Galilee because he was without honor in Judea. According to
Matthew the Galileans rejected him; according to John “the Galileans
received him.” According to Matthew, Galilee was “his own country”;
according to John, Judea was “his own country.”

Regarding these contradictory statements, Scott, in his “English Life of
Jesus” (p. 114), says: “The Synoptists in every case give a special reason
for his leaving Galilee, while the fourth gospel is equally careful in
specifying the reason for his leaving Jerusalem. According to the former,

Jesus would not have left Galilee if he could have avoided it; according to
the latter, he would have remained at Jerusalem if he could have done so
with safety. The inconsistency is glaring.”

171

When he came into his own country and taught in the synagogue what did
the people say?

Mark: “Is not this the carpenter?” (vi, 3 .)

Matthew: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (xiii, 55 .)

172

When Herod heard of his wonderful works, what did he say?

“This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead” (Matthew xiv, 2 ).

Here, early in Christ’s ministry, the tetrarch of Galilee is represented as
entertaining the Christian doctrine of a bodily resurrection.

173

When and for what reason was John beheaded?

Matthew and Mark: “But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of
Herodias [Salome] danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he
promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she,
being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist’s
head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake,
and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And
he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a
charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother” (Matt.
xiv, 6–11 ; Mark vi, 21–28 ).

This account of the death of John is utterly at variance with that given in
Josephus. This historian, assuming the passage relating to John to be
genuine, says:

“Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might
put it into his power and inclination to raise rebellion (for they seemed to do
anything he should advise), thought it best by putting him to death, to
prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties,
by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too
late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper,
to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death”
(Antiquities, B. xviii, ch. v, sec. 2).

Macherus, where Josephus states that John was executed, was a place far
removed from Herod’s capital—was outside of his dominions—in Arabia
Petrea.

Referring to the Evangelistic account of John’s death, Dr. Hooykaas says:
“This eminently dramatic story certainly cannot be accepted as it stands. It
betrays too much art in its striking contrasts between the manners of the
court and the person of the prophet. We have already seen that the occasion
of John’s imprisonment is not correctly given by the Gospels. That such a
man as Herod ‘delighted in hearing’ John is, to say the least, an
exaggeration. The ghastly scene in which the prophet’s head is carried into
the festive hall may not be quite impossible in such an age and at such a
court, but it is hardly probable. It is easy to see that Herodias is drawn after

the model of Ahab’s wife, who hated and persecuted the first Elijah; and
Salome is evidently copied from Esther, for she, too, visits the prince by
surprise, captivates him by her beauty, obtains a promise of anything up to
the half of his kingdom, and at the festive board demands the death of her
enemy as the royal boon” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p. 272).

174

Who was Herodias?

Synoptics: “His [Herod’s] brother Philip’s wife” (Matt. xiv, 3 ; Mark vi,
17 ; Luke iii, 19 ).

Herodias was a grand-daughter of Herod the Great, and married her uncle
Herod, the disinherited son of Herod the Great. She subsequently married
Antipas, the Herod who is said to have put John to death. Herod’s brother
Philip (Tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulonitis) was not the son of Marianne,
as the first husband of Herodias was, but the son of Cleopatra. Philip’s wife
was Salome, the daughter of Herodias. The daughter of Herodias, instead of
being a damsel dancing at the court of Herod, as the Synoptics declare, was
at this time the wife of an aged ruler of a foreign province. According to
Whiston, she became a widow in the very year in which John died.
Herodias was not the wife, but the mother-in-law of Herod’s brother Philip.
Whiston, in his translation of Josephus, attempts to gloss over the
Synoptics’ error by inserting in brackets after Herod the word “Philip.”
Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary” concedes the error and accounts for it “By
supposing that there is a confusion between the first husband and the son-
in-law of Herodias, for her daughter Salome married Philip the tetrarch.”

175

What is said of the numbers baptized by Jesus and his disciples as
compared with those baptized by John?

John: “The Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples
than John. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)” (iv, 1,
2 .)

Matthew (iii, 5 ) and Mark (i, 5 ) declare that John had baptized
“Jerusalem and all Judea.” It is admitted, both in the New Testament and by
Christians, that Jesus made but few converts during his lifetime, and to
assert or intimate that he and his disciples baptized more than John is
preposterous.

176

Who furnished the loaves and fishes with which the multitude in the desert
was fed?

Synoptics: The disciples (Matt. xiv, 15–17 ; Mark vi, 35–38 ; Luke ix, 12,
13 ).

John: “A lad” (vi, 9 ).

177

How many were fed?

Mark: “And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men”
(vi, 44 ).

Matthew: “And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside
women and children” (xiv, 21 ).

178

Where did this miracle occur?

Luke: “In a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida” (ix, 10 ).

Mark says that after the miracle “He constrained his disciples to get into a
ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida” (vi, 45 ).

If the miracle was performed in a place belonging to the city of Bethsaida,
as stated by Luke, they did not cross the sea to reach Bethsaida, as stated by
Mark.

179

After feeding the five thousand what did Jesus do?

Matthew and Mark: “He sent the multitudes away” (Matt. xiv, 22 ; Mark
vi, 45 ).

John: He did not send the multitude away, but withdrew himself into a
mountain (vi, 15 ).

180

For what purpose did he go to the mountain?

Matthew and Mark: “And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went
up into a mountain, apart to pray” (Matt. xiv, 23 ; Mark vi, 46 ).

John: “When Jesus therefore perceived that they [the multitude] would
come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a
mountain alone” (vi, 15 ).

Matthew and Mark say nothing about the attempt to make him king; John
says nothing about his praying.

181

Were his disciples with him?

Matthew and Mark: “And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get
into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the
multitude away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into
a mountain apart to pray; and when the evening was come, he was there
alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea” (Matt. xiv, 22–24 ;
Mark vi, 45–47 ).

Luke: “And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were
with him” (ix, 18 ).

Matthew and Mark send his disciples ahead in a ship to make room for his
miracle of walking on the sea, a miracle that Luke knows nothing of.

182

To what port did he command his disciples to sail?

Mark: “Unto Bethsaida” (vi, 45 ).

Pursuant to this command toward what place did they steer?

John: “Toward Capernaum” (vi, 17 ).

Where did this bring them?

Matthew: “Into the land of Gennesaret” (xiv, 34 ).

183

Jesus himself is said to have followed them on foot. Where did he overtake
them?

Matthew and Mark: “In the midst of the sea” (Matt. xiv, 24–26 ; Mark vi,
47, 48 ).

John: As they were nearing the land (vi, 19–21 ).

According to John, he walked entirely across the sea; according to Matthew
and Mark, but half way across.

Christ’s walking on the sea was probably suggested by Job (ix, 8 ), who
says God “treadeth upon the waves of the sea,” or, according to the
Septuagint, “walking upon the sea as upon a pavement.”

184

What remarkable feat was attempted on the trip?

Matthew: “And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on
the water, to go to Jesus. And when he saw the wind boisterous, he was
afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord save me. And
immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him” (Matt. xiv, 29–
31 ).

Mark and John, who relate with much particularity the events of this
voyage, do not mention Peter’s adventure.

“Probably they had good reason for omitting it. A profane mind might make
a jest of an apostle ‘half seas over,’ and ridicule an apostolic gate-keeper
who couldn’t keep his head above water.”—Bradlaugh.

185

What did the Jews say to Jesus respecting his Messianic mission?

“Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John vii, 52 ).

Search and look; for out of Galilee arose some of their greatest prophets,
Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and Elijah. It may be urged that it is the Jews who

give expression to the error; but it is plain the Evangelist accepts the
statement as true.

186

What notable incident occurred at Jerusalem?

John: The release by Jesus of the woman taken in adultery (vii, 53 ; viii, 1–
11 ).

This is popularly regarded as one of the most admirable acts in Christ’s
ministry. In the New Version the twelve verses relating it are declared by
the Oxford revisers to be an interpolation.

187

In the miracle of restoring the sight of the man born blind, what did he tell
the man to do?

“Go wash in the pool of Siloam” (John ix, 7 ).

“The Lord sent the blind man to wash, not in, as our version has it, but at
the pool of Siloam; for it was the clay from his eyes that was to be washed
off.”—Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

188

What is the meaning of the word “Siloam”?

John: “Which is by interpretation, ‘Sent’” (ix, 7 ).

Which is not by interpretation “sent,” but “aqueduct.”

189

Who provoked the displeasure of the Pharisees by eating with unwashed
hands?

Matthew and Mark: The disciples of Jesus (Matt. xv, 1, 2 ; Mark vii, 1,
2 ).

Luke: Jesus himself (xi, 37, 38 ).

190

Of what nationality was the woman who desired Jesus to cast the devil out
of her daughter?

Matthew: “A woman of Canaan” (xv, 22 ).

Mark: “The woman was a Greek” (vii, 26 ).

191

What did his disciples say when he expressed his intention of feeding the
four thousand?

Mark: “And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy
these men with bread here in the wilderness? And he asked them, How
many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven” (viii, 4, 5 ).

Why should they be surprised at his intention of feeding four thousand with
seven loaves when but a few weeks before he had fed five thousand with
five loaves?

In regard to this miracle Rev. William Sanday, of England, author of “Jesus
Christ,” the most important article in Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary,” says:
“Are the two Feedings of Mark to be regarded as two events or one?
Besides the general resemblance between the two narratives, a weighty
argument in favor of the latter hypothesis is, that in the second narrative the
disciples’ question implies that the emergency was something new. They
could hardly have put this question as they did if a similar event had
happened only a few weeks before.” This is also the opinion of Dr.
Schleiermacher.

192

After feeding the four thousand where did he come?

Matthew (Old Ver.): “Came into the coasts of Magdala” (xv, 39 ).

Matthew (New Ver.): “Came into the borders of Magadan.”

193

Where does Mark say he came?

“Came into the parts of Dalmanutha (viii, 10 ).

Criticising this statement, the “Bible for Learners” says: “Mark makes him
journey still farther north, through the district of Sidon, and then turn
southeast to the lake of Galilee, pass some way down its eastern shore
apparently, and finally take ship and cross in a southwesterly direction to
Dalmanutha, where we meet him once again. But the Evangelist’s
geography is open to suspicion, and we are inclined to lay these apparently
purposeless wanderings of Jesus to the account of Mark’s want of accuracy”
(Vol. iii, p. 282).

194

What did he say to the Pharisees who asked for a sign?

“There shall no sign be given unto this generation” (Mark viii, 12 ).

“There shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas”
(Matthew xvi, 4 ).

195

On the way to Caesarea Philippi what remarkable discovery was made by
Peter?

Matthew: “He [Jesus] asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I
the Son of Man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist:
some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto
them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said
unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (xvi, 13–17 ).

According to Matthew, Jesus is astonished at the discovery of Peter and
attributes it to a revelation from Heaven. Yet previous to this, and in the
presence of Peter, according to the same writer, the other disciples had
declared him to be “the Son of God” (Matthew xiv, 33 ).

196

The Synoptics all declare that the Messiahship of Jesus was not revealed to
his disciples until late in his ministry. Is this true?

John: It is not. It was known to them at the beginning of his ministry.
Before Peter was called Andrew said, “We have found the Messias, which
is, being interpreted, the Christ” (i, 41 ). On the following day Nathanael
said to Jesus, “Thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel” (49 ).

197

When did the Transfiguration take place?

Matthew and Mark: Six days after the discourse in which he announced his
second coming (Matt. xvii, 1 ; Mark ix, 2 ).

Luke: “About an eight days after these sayings” (ix, 28 ).

198

Was the countenance of Jesus changed?

Matthew and Luke: It was. “And his face did shine as the sun, and his
raiment was white as the light” (Matt. xvii, 2 ). “The fashion of his
countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening” (Luke
ix, 29 ).

Mark: The appearance of his raiment only was changed. “And his raiment
became shining, exceeding white as snow” (ix, 3 ).

199

When did Peter propose building the three tabernacles to Jesus, Moses and
Elias?

Matthew and Mark: While Moses and Elias were yet with them (Matt. xvii,
3, 4 ; Mark ix, 4–8 ).

Luke: After they had departed (ix, 33 ).

200

What did the voice from the clouds declare?

Mark and Luke: “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him” (Mark ix, 7 ; Luke
ix, 35 ).

Matthew: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye
him” (xvii, 5 ).

Luke’s account of the Transfiguration differs in many respects from that of
Matthew and Mark. Luke says that Jesus went up into the mountain to pray;
Matthew and Mark make no mention of this. Luke says the disciples were
asleep when Moses and Elias appeared. According to Matthew and Mark
they were awake. Luke says that Moses and Elias “spake of his decease.”
Matthew and Mark do not know what they talked about.

201

Who witnessed the Transfiguration?

Synoptics: Peter, James and John (Matt. xvii, 1 ; Mark ix, 2 ; Luke ix,
28 ).

It is remarkable that Matthew, Mark and Luke, who did not witness the
Transfiguration, are the only ones to report it; while John, who is declared
to have witnessed it, knows nothing about it. Concerning this and other
events which John is said to have witnessed, Greg says: “All the events said
to have been witnessed by John alone are omitted by John alone. This fact

seems fatal either to the reality of the events in question or to the
genuineness of the Fourth Gospel.”

Regarding this subject Scott says: “By some singular fatality the writer of
the fourth gospel seems incapable of describing any one incident in the life
of Jesus as the Synoptics have described it.... It is hard to believe that we
are reading narratives which profess to relate the life of the same person....
If then in these particulars, the Synoptic Gospels are correct, the Johannine
version of the events is pure fiction; and if the latter be taken as the true
account, no dependence whatever can be placed upon the former” (Life of
Jesus, pp. 259–263).

202

Compare the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus with the account of
Moses at Mount Sinai.

Matthew. Exodus.

“And after six days Jesus taketh “Then went up Moses, and Aaron,
Peter, James, and John his brother, Nadab and Abihu” (xxiv, 9 ).
and bringeth them up into a high
mountain apart, “And Moses went up into the mount,
and a cloud covered the mount.
“And was transfigured before
them, and his face did shine as the “And the glory of the Lord abode upon
sun, and his raiment was white as Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it
the light” (xvii, 1, 2 ). six days; and the seventh day he called
unto Moses out of the midst of the
“While he yet spake, behold, a cloud.
bright cloud overshadowed them;
and behold a voice out of the “And the sight of the glory of the Lord
cloud,” etc. (5 ). was like devouring fire” (15–17 ).

We have in each account a prophet and three companions; in each the
persons mentioned go up into a mountain; in each there is a supernatural
brightness; in each an overshadowing cloud; in each a celestial voice
speaking out of the cloud; in each Moses is a prominent figure; in each a
period of six days is mentioned.

203

What occurred immediately after the Transfiguration?

Matthew: “His disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly
shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias is come
already and they know him not.... Then the disciples understood that he
spake unto them of John the Baptist” (xvii, 10–13 ).

It is quite natural that the writing of one story concerning Elias should
suggest another; but reason forbids the acceptance of both as true. If Elias
was seen and recognized at the mountain, as stated, the above conversation
did not follow that appearance.

204

What ailed the man’s son whom Jesus cured after the Transfiguration?

Matthew (Old Ver.): He was a lunatic (xvii, 15 ).

Matthew (New Ver.): He was an epileptic.

Mark: He had “a dumb spirit” (ix, 17 ).

205

When the authorities at Capernaum demanded tribute of Jesus what did he
command Peter to do?

“Go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh
up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money;
that take, and give unto them for me and thee” (Matthew xvii, 27 ).

Matthew does not venture to say that Peter was successful, doubtless
recognizing the fact that there ought to be limits even to a fish story.

Regarding this story Archbishop Trench says: “It is remarkable, and is a
solitary instance of the kind, that the issue of this bidding is not told us.” Dr.
Farrar says: “I agree with the learned and thoughtful Olshausen in regarding

this as the most difficult to comprehend of all the gospel miracles” (Life of
Christ, p. 288).

206

What was the nature of the tribute demanded?

It was an annual tax, known as the temple service tax, a tax from which no
Jew, rich or poor, was exempt. Regarding the time and manner of its
collection, Farrar says: “On the 1st of Adar, the demand was made quietly
and civilly; if, however, it had not been paid by the 25th, then it seems that
the collectors of the contribution (tobhin shekalim) might take a security for
it from the defaulter” (Life of Christ, p. 285).

The tax was always collected in the early spring. Yet according to Matthew
it was collected from Jesus in the autumn, just before the feast of
tabernacles. Either Matthew was ignorant of the time of its collection, or
Jesus was a defaulter.

Nor is this the only difficulty needing explanation. It is assumed that Peter
secured the coin in the manner directed. If so, how did it come into
existence? Did Jesus miraculously create it? If so, he was a counterfeiter.
Was it a lost coin? In this case, if he was omniscient, as claimed, he knew
the owner and should have restored it.

207

After leaving Galilee where did Jesus go?

Matthew: “Into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan” (xix, 1 ).

The Jordan being the eastern boundary of Judea, no “coasts of Judea”
existed beyond it.

208

In going to Jerusalem to attend his last Passover, what route did he take?

Luke: “He passed through the midst of Samaria” (xvii, 11 ).

Mark: He “cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of the Jordan”
(x, 1 ).

Two entirely different routes. As the province of Samaria lay between those
of Galilee and Judea, the direct route from Galilee to Jerusalem was
“through the midst of Samaria.” The orthodox Jews, however, in order to
avoid the Samaritans, whom they thoroughly despised, usually crossed the
Jordan, which formed the boundary of the three provinces, came down on
the east side of the river through Perea, recrossed the river, and thus entered
“into the coasts of Judea from the farther side of Jordan.”

209

What city did he pass through on his way to Jerusalem?

Luke: “And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho” (xix, 1 ).

Luke here contradicts his previous statement that “he passed through the
midst of Samaria,” for Jericho was not on the route from Samaria, but on

the route from Perea by way of “the farther side of Jordan,” the route which
Mark declares he took.

210

What miracle did he perform on the way?

Luke: “As he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were
lepers, which stood afar off; and they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus,
Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go
shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they
were cleansed” (xvii, 12–14 ).

The other Evangelists do not mention this miracle. Concerning it the “Bible
for Learners” says: “It is an unsuccessful imitation of the account we have
already examined of the healing of a leper. It is absolutely unhistorical”
(Vol. iii, p. 310).

211

Was it one or two blind men that sat by the wayside beseeching him to heal
them?

Mark: “Blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side
begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry
out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me” (x, 46, 47 ).

Luke: “A certain blind man sat by the wayside begging: ... And he cried,
saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me” (xviii, 35, 38 ).

Matthew: “Two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard that
Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of
David” (xx, 30 ).

212

What inquiry did the disciples make regarding the cause of the man’s
blindness?

“Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”
(John ix, 2 ).

Regarding this, Mrs. Evans, in her “Christ Myth” (p. 55), says: “Such a
suggestion has no meaning when uttered by a Jew, but to a believer in the
transmigration of souls the query would be natural and pertinent, and the
story appears to be a modification of a well-known Buddhistic parable.”

213

When did this occur?

Luke: “As he was come nigh into Jericho” (xviii, 35 ).

Matthew: “As they separated from Jericho” (xx, 29 ).

Mark: “As he went out of Jericho” (x, 46 ).

Mark agrees with Luke and disagrees with Matthew as to the number of
men, and agrees with Matthew and disagrees with Luke as to the time of its
occurrence.

214

What did Jesus say regarding divorce?

Mark: “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and
marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put
away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (x,
11, 12 ).

This was written by one acquainted with the Roman, but not with the
Jewish law. The Jewish law did not recognize the right of a wife to put
away her husband for any cause whatever. Matthew (v, 31, 32 ) and Luke
(xvi, 18 ) knew better.

215

According to Mark he said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery.” What did he say according to Matthew?

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery” (xix, 9 ).

This is a notable discrepancy. According to Mark if a husband divorce his
wife for any cause whatever he cannot lawfully marry another. According to
Matthew if he divorce his wife for fornication he can lawfully marry again.

216

In his conversation with the rich man what commandments did he
prescribe?

“Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false
witness, Honor thy father and thy mother” (Luke xviii, 20 ).

“Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false
witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and thy mother” (Mark x, 19 ).

“Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother;
and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew xix, 18, 19 ).

No two of the Synoptics agree. Mark and Matthew each give a
commandment not given by either of the others.

217

What great miracle did he perform at Bethany?

John: The raising of Lazarus from the dead. “Then said Jesus unto them
plainly, Lazarus is dead” (xi, 14 ). “Jesus therefore again groaning in
himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. Jesus
said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith
unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he hath been dead four days”
(38, 39 ). “Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead
was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that
thou hast heard me” (41 ). “And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a
loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound
hand and foot with grave clothes” (43, 44 ).

The Synoptics make no mention of this miracle; and as it is the greatest
miracle ascribed to Jesus it was certainly unknown to them.

Commenting on the doubtful character of alleged events narrated by one
Evangelist and omitted by the others, Strauss says: “But this ground of
doubt falls with incomparably greater weight, on the narrative of the
resurrection of Lazarus in the fourth gospel. If the authors or collectors of
the three first gospels knew of this, they could not, for more than one
reason, avoid introducing it into their writings. For, first, of all the
resuscitations effected by Jesus, nay, of all his miracles, this resurrection of
Lazarus, if not the most wonderful, is yet the one in which the marvelous
presents itself the most obviously and strikingly, and which, therefore, if its
historical reality can be established, is a preeminently strong proof of the
extraordinary endowments of Jesus as a divine messenger; whence the
evangelists, although they had related one or two other instances of the
kind, could not think it superfluous to add this also. But, secondly, the
resurrection of Lazarus had, according to the representation of John, a direct
influence in the development of the fate of Jesus; for we learn from xi, 47
ff., that the increased resort to Jesus, and the credit which this event
procured him, led to that consultation of the Sanhedrim in which the
sanguinary counsel of Caiaphas was given and approved. Thus the event
had a double importance—pragmatical as well as dogmatical; consequently,
the synoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it, had it been within
their knowledge” (Leben Jesu, p. 548).

Referring to this miracle and the restoration of the sight of the man born
blind, Prof. Newman says: “That the three first narrators should have been
ignorant of them is simply impossible; that they should not have felt their
preeminent value is incredible” (Religion not History, p. 27).

There are three alleged instances in the Gospels of Christ restoring the dead
to life.

1. The raising of the daughter of Jairus from her death bed, related by
Matthew.

2. The raising of the son of the widow of Nain from his bier as they were
carrying him to the grave, related by Luke.

3. The raising of Lazarus from his grave after he had lain four days, related
by John.

Even if these miracles were possible one fact disproves them: the silence of
the other Evangelists. Of these three stories not one is confirmed by another
Evangelist. His less important miracles, such as healing the sick, are, many
of them, recorded in all of the gospels, or at least in all of the Synoptics; yet
each of these, his greatest miracles, stands alone, unnoticed by the other
writers. Mark and Luke mention the daughter of Jairus, but only to deny the
miracle by declaring that she was not dead. Had these miracles really been
performed, all of the Evangelists would have had a knowledge of them, and
all would have recorded them. These writers do not complement each other,
as claimed: they exclude each other. There are many Lives of Napoleon; but
not one of his biographers has seen fit to omit his greatest victories because
some other biographer has narrated them.

218

Who was it requested that James and John might sit, one on the right and
the other on the left hand of Jesus in his kingdom?

Matthew: “She [their mother] said unto him, Grant that these my two sons
may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom”
(xx, 21 ).

Mark: “They [James and John] said unto him, Grant unto us that we may
sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy glory” (x, 37 ).

219

Who occupies a seat at the left hand of Jesus?

Mark: God (xvi, 19 ).

The modesty of the foregoing request is apparent. Zebedee’s family were
evidently trying to play a sharp game on Jesus, and get a first mortgage on
his Father’s throne.

220

What did Jesus affirm in regard to the mustard seed?

“Which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown is the greatest
among the herbs” (Matthew xiii, 32 ).

A mustard seed is not “the least of all seeds;” neither is the plant “the
greatest among herbs.”

221

With faith as large as a grain of mustard seed, what did he say his disciples
could do?

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain,
Remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove” (Matthew xvii, 20 ).

“If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine
tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it
should obey you” (Luke xvii, 6 ).

222

In the parable of the Great Feast what was the character of the feast?

Matthew: A wedding “dinner” (xxii, 4 ).

Luke: “A great supper” (xiv, 16 ).

223

Whom did the giver of the feast send to invite the guests?

Matthew: “His servants” (3 ).

Luke: “His servant” (17 ).

Such errors may be considered trivial and their notice captious; but
infallible writings do not contain even trivial errors.

224

What befell the servants, or servant?

Matthew: “And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them
spitefully, and slew them” (6 ).

Luke: The servant returned unharmed (21 ).

225

What did the giver of the feast declare respecting those who refused to
attend?

“That none of those men which were bidden shall taste my supper” (xiv,
24 ).

As they had already declined to do so, the force of the interdiction is not
apparent.

226

Relate the circumstances connected with the attendance of the guest who
wore no wedding garment.

Matthew: “Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they
which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and
as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.... And when the king came in
to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment;

and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a
wedding garment? And he was speechless” (xxii, 8–12 ).

The relator of this incident, which is omitted by Luke, would have us
suppose that the frequenters of the highways went clad in wedding
garments.

The parables of Jesus are declared to be perfect models of Literary
composition, and filled with lessons of divine wisdom. A few of them
possess some literary merit; but the most of them are faulty. They contain
many questionable ethical teachings; they are illogically constructed; the
imagery is unnatural, and the language crude.

227

In the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen did the owner of the vineyard
send one servant, or more than one, each time to collect the rent?

Mark and Luke: He sent but one (Mark xii, 2–5 ; Luke xx, 10–12 ).

Matthew: He sent more than one (xxi, 33–36 ).

228

What happened to the servants?

Matthew and Mark: Some of them were killed.

Luke: They were beaten and sent away, but none were killed.

229

In the parable of the Talents how did the master apportion his money?

Matthew: He gave to the first servant five talents, to the second two, to the
third, one (xxv, 15 ).

Luke: He gave to each one pound (xix, 13 ).

230

What was their gain?

Matthew: Each doubled his money (16, 17 ).

Luke: The first increased his tenfold, the second fivefold (16, 18 ).

231

What did the unprofitable servant do with the money entrusted to him?

Matthew: He “digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money” (xxv, 18 ).

Luke: He said, “Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up
in a napkin” (xix, 20 ).

232

What are the concluding words of Jesus in this parable?

“For unto every one that hath shall be given: ... but from him that hath not
shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable
servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”
(Matthew xxv, 29, 30 ).

“That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not,
even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies,
which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them
before me” (Luke xix, 26, 27 ).

233

In the lawyer’s interview with Jesus, who was it, the lawyer, or Jesus, that
stated the two great commandments?

Matthew and Mark: Jesus. “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked
him a question, tempting him, saying, Master which is the great
commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is
the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself” (xxii, 35–39 ).

Luke: The lawyer. “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted
him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto

him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he [the lawyer]
answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy
neighbor as thyself” (x, 25–27 ).

234

“And after that they durst not ask him any questions.” After what?

Matthew: After his controversy with the Pharisees respecting David and
Christ (xxii, 41–46 ).

Mark: After his conversation with the scribe regarding the commandments
(xii, 28–37 ).

Luke: After confuting the Sadducees in regard to the resurrection (xx, 27–
40 ).

235

Did his controversy concerning David and Christ take place with the
Pharisees, as stated by Matthew?

Luke: It did not. It was with “certain of the scribes” (xx, 39 ).

236

Where was Jesus on the day preceding his triumphal entry into Jerusalem?

John: With Lazarus at Bethany (three miles from Jerusalem) (xii, 1–15 ).

Luke: With Zaccheus near Jericho (twenty miles from Jerusalem) (xix, 1–
40 ).

237

Preparatory to his triumphal entry what command did he give his disciples?

“Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye
shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him
hither” (Luke xix, 30 ).

“Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass
tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me” (Matthew
xxi, 2 ).

238

Did he ride both animals?

Matthew: He did. “And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded
them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and
they set him thereon” (6, 7 ).

The equestrian feat of his riding two asses, a large one and a small one, at
the same time, must have heightened the effect of this sublime pageant.

Matthew is continually seeing double. In the demoniac of Gadara he sees
two demoniacs; in the blind man by the wayside he sees two men; and in
other instances where the other Evangelists see but one person or thing he
sees two.

239

The riding of two asses by Jesus was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “And this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King
cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an
ass” (xxi, 4, 5 ).

Matthew’s rendering of this passage (Zechariah ix, 9 ) arises from a
misunderstanding of the meaning of its words. The prophet, or poet, does
not mean two asses, but one; the clause “a colt the foal of an ass,” is merely
a poetical repetition or qualification of the preceding clause.

This blunder of Matthew is significant. It exposes the fictitious character of
this so-called Gospel history. It proves that Christ’s triumphal entry into
Jerusalem is not a historical event—that this story is a pure fabrication,
suggested by this alleged prophecy.

240

When did Jesus purge the temple?

Synoptics: At the close of his ministry, a few days before his death
(Matthew xxi, 12–16 ; Mark xi, 15–18 ; Luke xix, 45–48 ).

John: At the beginning of his ministry, three years before his death (ii, 13–
22 ).

Origen doubted the occurrence of this event, believing it to be a mere
allegory.

241

When did he curse the fig tree?

Matthew: After he purged the temple (xxi, 12–19 ).

Mark: Before he purged the temple (xi, 12–15 ).

242

When was the tree discovered by his disciples to be withered?

Matthew: As soon as cursed (19 ).

Mark: Not until the next morning (13–20 ).

243

Mark says that he visited the tree for the purpose of obtaining figs. Why did
the tree contain no fruit?

Mark: “Because the time of figs was not yet” (13 ).

This was before the Passover which occurred in March or April. In that part
of Palestine where the miracle is said to have been performed the bocore, or
early fig, ripened its first crop during the latter part of June; while the
kermus, or fig proper, ripened in August. What a spectacle! An omniscient
God searching for figs in March, and disappointed at not finding them—
creating a tree to bear fruit in the summer and cursing it for not bearing in
the spring!

244

What did Jesus accuse the Jews of doing?

Matthew: Of having slain prophets and wise men, among them “Zacharias
son of Barachias” (xxiii, 35 ).

The Zacharias mentioned was slain in Jerusalem, 69 A. D.; so that Matthew
makes Jesus refer to an event that occurred forty years after his death.

Referring to this passage, the Catholic scholar, Dr. Hug, says: “There cannot
be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the
object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zacharias Barouchos, who,
according to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was
unjustly slain in the temple.”

Commenting on this passage, Prof. Newman says: “There is no other man
known in history to whom the verse can allude. If so, it shows how late,

how ignorant, how rash, is the composer of a text passed off on us as sacred
truth” (Religion not History, p. 46).

245

Repeat his lamentation concerning Jerusalem’s rejection of him.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them
which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye
would not!” (Matthew xxiii, 37 ; Luke xiii, 34 .)

Where was he when he uttered this lamentation?

Matthew: During his visit at Jerusalem.

Luke: In Galilee before he went to Jerusalem.

Not only are these writers at variance with each other as to the time and
place of utterance, but the lamentation itself, which declares that he had
made repeated efforts to convert Jerusalem, is at variance with both of
them. For according to Matthew he had just arrived on his first visit to
Jerusalem, while according to Luke he had never yet, during his ministry,
visited Jerusalem.

246

Who anointed Jesus?

Matthew and Mark: “A woman” (Matt. xxvi, 7 ; Mark xiv, 3 ).

Luke: “A sinful woman” (vii, 37 ).

John: Mary, the sister of Lazarus (xii, 3 ).

Luke’s “sinful woman” is recognized as Mary Magdalene. Farrar says: “In
the popular consciousness she will till the end of time be identified with the
Magdalene.” Matthew and Mark’s “woman” may be harmonized with either
Mary Magdalene or Mary the sister of Lazarus; but Luke and John are
irreconcilable.

247

Where did she put the ointment?

Matthew and Mark: On his head (Matt. xxvi, 7 ; Mark xiv, 3 ).

Luke and John: On his feet (Luke vii, 38–46 ; John xii, 3 ).

248

Where did this occur?

Matthew, Mark and John: In Bethany (Matt. xxvi, 6 ; Mark xiv, 3 ; John
xii, 1 ).

Luke: In Nain (vii, 11–37 ).

249

At whose house did it occur?

Synoptics: At the house of Simon (Matt. xxvi, 6, 7 ; Mark xiv, 3 ; Luke
vii, 36–40 ).

John: At the house of Lazarus (xii, 1–3 ).

250

Who was Simon?

Matthew and Mark: A leper (Matt. xxvi, 6 ; Mark xiv, 3 ).

Luke: A Pharisee (vii, 39–40 ).

251

At what time during his ministry did this anointing occur?

Matthew, Mark and John: At the close of his ministry (Matt. xxvi, xxvii;
Mark xiv ; John xii ).

Luke: Early in his ministry (vii, 36–50 ).

252

Did it occur before or after his triumphal entry?

Matthew and Mark: After (Matt. xxi, 1–11 , xxvi, 6–13 ; Mark xi, 1–11 ,
xiv, 3–9 ).

John: Before (xii, 1–15 ).

253

How many days before the Passover did it occur?

Mark: Two days (xiv, 1–3 ).

John: Six days (xii, 1–3 ).

“The prima facie view would certainly be that the anointing at Bethany was
placed by Mark two days and by John six days before the Passover.”—
Scribner’s Bible Dictionary.

254

Who objected to this apparent waste of the ointment?

Matthew: “His disciples” (xxvi, 8, 9 ).

John: “Judas Iscariot” (xii, 4, 5 ).

These different versions of the anointing of Jesus present so many
discrepancies that some have supposed that two or more anointings were
made. The Archbishop of York, the most popular of Gospel harmonists,
concedes that but one anointing was made.

After an exhaustive review of the case, Strauss says: “Without doubt, we
have here but one history under three various forms; and this seems to have
been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.”

255

While Jesus was at Jerusalem there came a voice from heaven. For what
purpose was the voice sent?

John: For the sake of those who stood by. “Jesus answered and said, This
voice came not because of me, but for your sakes” (xii, 30 ).

Of what benefit was the voice when those who heard it were unable to
distinguish it from thunder? “The people therefore, that stood by and heard
it, said that it thundered” (29 ).

The Evangelists relate several instances of celestial voices being heard. As
there is, in nearly every instance, a disagreement in regard to the message
conveyed, it is probable that an electrical disturbance inspired the voice,
while a vivid imagination interpreted its meaning. Regarding these voices,
the Duke of Somerset says: “A belief in these heavenly voices was a
common superstition among the Jews.”

256

When did the Last Supper take place?

Synoptics: On the Passover (Matt. xxvi, 18–20 ; Mark xiv, 16–18 ; Luke
xxii, 13–15 ).

John: On the day preceding the Passover.

Luke says: “And they made ready the passover. And when the hour was
come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto
them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer.”

John, in his account of the Last Supper, says it was “before the feast of the
passover” (xiii, 1 ). The Evangelists all agree that his trial and execution
took place on the day following the Last Supper. John says the Jews “went
not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might
eat the passover” (xviii, 28 ). After narrating the events of the trial, John
says: “And it was the preparation of the passover” (xix, 14 ).

According to the Synoptics, the Last Supper was eaten on the 14th Nisan,
and, by our mode of reckoning time, on Thursday evening; according to
John, it was eaten on the 13th Nisan, and, by our mode of reckoning, on
Wednesday evening. The Synoptics declare that this supper was the regular
Paschal meal; according to John, it was an ordinary meal, the Paschal meal
not being eaten until after Christ’s death.

“The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening of the 14th
Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover with his disciples, and
that he was arrested in the first hours of the 15th Nisan, the day on which he
was put to death. Nothing can be more distinct than the statement that the
last supper was the Paschal feast.... The fourth Gospel, however, in
accordance with the principle which is dominant throughout, represents the
last repast which Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper, which
takes place, not on the 14th, but on the 13th Nisan, the day ‘before the feast
of the Passover.’”—Supernatural Religion.

Thousands of pages have been written in vain attempts to reconcile this
grave discrepancy. Scribner’s “Bible Dictionary,” which contains the best
fruits of orthodox scholarship, both of England and America, concedes a
contradiction. It says: “The Synoptics seem to identify the two [the Last
Supper and the Paschal meal], whereas St. John expressly places the Last
Supper before the Passover.”

After an exhaustive review of the subject, Strauss voices the conclusion of
German scholars in the following words: “Our only course is to
acknowledge an irreconcilable contradiction between the respective
accounts, without venturing a decision as to which is the correct one”
(Leben Jesu, p. 702).

257

The Synoptics state that the Last Supper was the Paschal meal. Describe the
Paschal meal.

“All leaning upon the cushions around the table, the first cup of wine was
served, and grace pronounced over the same and the feast. This cup of wine
being disposed of, vegetables and sauce were placed on the table, and the
vegetables, dipped in the sauce, were blessed and eaten. Next the
unleavened bread, the bitter herb, and a piquant sauce called Haroseth were
served, and the bitter herb, dipped in the Haroseth, was blessed and eaten.
Then the Paschal lamb was placed on the table with portions of another
sacrifice. One of the company asked the question why all this was done,
during which the second cup of wine was served. The head of the table
explaining narrated the story of the Exodus, closed with a hymn, spoke the
second time grace over the wine, and all disposed of the same. Now came
the breaking of the bread and the eating and drinking. This finished, the
third cup of wine was served, and grace after meal was pronounced. After
which the fourth cup was served, and the ceremonies closed with hymns
and psalms, and disposing of the fourth cup of wine” (Mishna).

This was the Paschal meal as it was observed in the reputed time of Christ
and up to 70 A. D. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
temple the great Passover feast retained but the shadow of its former glory.
The Paschal meal and the ceremonies attending it were generally shortened.
The fact that the Evangelists were unacquainted with the regular Paschal
meal, that the Synoptics were familiar only with the ceremonies of later
times, shows that the Last Supper is a myth, and the Gospels the products of
a later age.

Criticising the Synoptics’ accounts of the Paschal meal, Dr. Isaac Wise, an
able Jewish scholar, says:

“If any evidence is required that neither Mark nor Matthew had ever seen
the Paschal meal, or described that of Jesus, it is furnished here. They do
not mention any one point connected with the Paschal supper, the
ceremonies of which were established. They mention only one ceremony,
viz., the breaking of the bread, and the cup of wine after the meal, which is
not only a mistake, but shows conclusively, that either of them had seen the
Paschal supper, after the destruction of Jerusalem, in some Jewish house,
and the ceremonies connected therewith, called the Seder. Therefore, no
mention whatsoever is made of the main thing—the Paschal lamb—and the
bread is broken after the meal, which was done by the Jews after closing the
Paschal meal, outside of Jerusalem, when the altar had been destroyed; and
no Paschal lamb was eaten” (Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 36, 37).

“Luke begins correctly, but makes a mistake in having the bread broken
right after the first cup of wine was handed round, which was done so at
every festive meal, except at the one described, and has but two cups of
wine instead of four. So we know that Luke did not describe what actually
happened that evening. He had seen the Jewish custom of opening the
festive meals with grace over the wine and bread, and made of it an
introduction to the Last Supper, without knowing that just that evening the
custom was changed” (Ibid. p. 38).

258

What ceremony was instituted at the Last Supper?

Synoptics: The Eucharist (Matt. xxvi, 26–28 ; Mark xiv, 22–24 ; Luke
xxii, 19, 20 ).

John: The washing of feet (xiii, 4–9 ).

John does not mention the former ceremony, and the Synoptics do not
mention the latter; yet each is said to have been performed immediately
after supper.

259

He told his disciples that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine
until he drank it in his Father’s kingdom. When was this?

Matthew: After instituting the Eucharist.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the
cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this
is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission
of sins.

“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until
that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (xxvi, 26–
29 ).

Luke: Before instituting the Eucharist.

“For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the
kingdom of God shall come.

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of
me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood, which is shed for you” (xxii, 18–20 ).

260

At the Last Supper did Jesus pass the cup once, or twice?

Matthew and Mark: Once (Matt. xxvi, 26–30 ; Mark xiv, 16–26 ).

Luke: Twice (xxii, 13–20 ).

Regarding this discrepancy, Scribners’ “Bible Dictionary” says: “The
temptation to expand was much stronger than to contract; and the double
mention of the cup raises real difficulties of the kind which suggest
interpolation.”

261

Where was Jesus when he uttered his last prayer?

Synoptics: In the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi, 36–39 ; Mark xiv,
32–36 ; Luke xxii, 39–42 ).

John: In Jerusalem before he retired to the garden (xvii , xviii, 1 ).

262

What is said of his agony at Gethsemane?

Luke: “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the
ground” (xxii, 44 ).

Whatever was the character of this so-called “bloody sweat,” it may be
remarked that Matthew, who was an apostle; Mark, who is claimed to be the
interpreter of Peter, an apostle who was with Jesus at the time; and John
who was not only an apostle, but present also, do not refer to it. Luke, who
was not an eye-witness—who was not an apostle—is the only one who
mentions it.

263

How many times did Jesus visit Jerusalem during his ministry?

John: At least four times (ii, 13 ; v, 1 ; x, 22, 23 ; xii, 12 ).

The Synoptics record but one visit.

264

To what country was his ministry chiefly confined?

Synoptics: To Galilee.

John: To Judea.

According to the Synoptics nearly his entire ministry was confined to
Galilee. It was only at the close of his ministry, a few days before his death,
that he visited Judea to attend the Passover. According to John his ministry
was confined chiefly to Judea. It requires but three or four of his twenty-one
chapters to record his work in Galilee. Farrar says: “The Synoptists almost
confine themselves to the Galilean, and St. John to the Judean ministry”
(Life of Christ, p. 361).

265

How long did his ministry last?

Synoptics: One year.

John: At least three years.

The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “According to the first three Gospels, Christ’s
public life lasted only one year” (Christian Records, p. 11).

Referring to this and the preceding discrepancy, the author of “Supernatural
Religion” says: “The Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as
having been limited to a single year, and his preaching is confined to
Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career culminates at the fatal Passover.
The fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus between Galilee,
Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over at least three years, and refers
to three Passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem” (p. 681).

Irenaeus, the greatest of the early Christian Fathers, and who lived in the
century following Jesus, declares that his ministry lasted twenty years. In
his principal work, “Against Heresies,” he combats the heresy of a one-year
ministry of Jesus. He says:

“They however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that
which is written, ‘To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,’ maintain

that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month.
They are forgetful of their own disadvantage, destroying his whole work,
and robbing him of that age which is both more necessary and more
honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which
also, as a teacher, he excelled all others. For how could he have had
disciples if he did not teach? And how could he have taught, unless he had
reached the age of a master? For when he came to be baptized, he had not
yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years
of age.... Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and
that this extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from
the fortieth and fiftieth year, a man begins to decline toward old age; which
our Lord possessed, while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher.... He did
not therefore preach for only one year, nor did he suffer in the twelfth
month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and fiftieth
year can never be regarded as one year” (Book ii, ch. xxii, secs. 5, 6).

266

What is said regarding the extent of his works?

John: “If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books” (xxi, 25 ).

In the very next verses of the Bible (Acts i, 1, 2 ) Luke declares that his
brief Gospel contains a record “of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
until the day in which he was taken up.”

267

Can the alleged teachings of Jesus be accepted as authentic?

Three facts disprove, for the most part, their authenticity.

1. The most important teachings ascribed to him by the Synoptics were
borrowed, either by him or his biographers, from other teachers and writers.

2. His teachings as presented by the Synoptics, and as presented by John,
exclude each other. No critic can seriously contend that the discourses and
sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptics and those given in the Fourth
Gospel emanated from the same mind. They are wholly dissimilar, both in
doctrine and phraseology. Dr. Westcott says: “It is impossible to pass from
the Synoptic Gospels to that of St. John without feeling that the transition
involves the passage from one world of thought to another. No familiarity
with the general teaching of the Gospels, no wide conception of the
character of the Savior, is sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in
form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives” (Introduction to
Study of Gospels, p. 249).

3. The discourses attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel were evidently
composed by the author of that Gospel. This is apparent to every careful
reader.

The teachings ascribed to Jesus in John, then, are spurious; while those
ascribed to him in Matthew, Mark and Luke are of doubtful authenticity. If
any of the teachings of Jesus have been preserved they exist in the first
three Gospels, but the unauthentic character of the Gospels themselves,
renders it impossible to ascribe to him with certainty a single teaching.

CHAPTER VI.

The Crucifixion of Christ.

268

When did Jesus first foretell his passion?

Synoptics: Not until late in his ministry (Matt. xvi, 21 ; Mark viii, 31 ;
Luke ix, 21–27 ).

According to John (ii, 19–22 ) he referred to it at the beginning of his
ministry.

269

When did he announce his betrayal?

Matthew and Mark: At the Last Supper, while they were eating. “Now when
the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he
said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me” (Matt. xxvi, 20,
21 ; Mark xiv, 18 ).

Luke and John: Not until after supper (Luke xxii, 20, 21 ; John xiii, 2–
21 ). John says that after supper he washed his disciples’ feet and delivered
a discourse to them, after which he said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
one of you shall betray me.”

270

Did Jesus say who should betray him?

Matthew and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 25 ; John xiii, 26 ).

Mark and Luke: He did not.

271

How did he disclose his betrayer?

Matthew: By an implied affirmative answer to Judas’ question, “Is it I?”
“Then Judas which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said
unto him, Thou hast said” (xxvi, 25 ).

John: By giving Judas a sop. “Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give
a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to
Judas Iscariot.”

272

When did Satan enter into Judas?

Luke: Before the Last Supper (xxii, 3–7 ).

John: After the Last Supper (xiii, 1–27 ).

273

How did Judas betray Jesus?

Matthew and Mark: “Now he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying,
Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he
came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master, and kissed him” (Matt. xxvi, 48, 49 ;
Mark xiv, 44, 45 ).

According to John, Judas did not betray him with a kiss.

274

What did Jesus say to Judas when he betrayed him?

“Friend, wherefore art thou come?” (Matthew xxvi, 50 .)

“Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?” (Luke xxii, 48 .)

275

What was Judas, and what office did he hold?

John: “He was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein” (xii,
6 ).

Judas was thus the first Christian treasurer. But why did Jesus, if
omniscient, as claimed, select a thief for this office? Was he unable to
conduct his ministry without the aid of one?

276

What did Judas receive for betraying his master?

Matthew: “And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver” (xxvi,
15 ).

“It is strange that a man who kept the purse, and knew what he would lose
by the death of his chief, should abandon the profits of his office for so
small a sum.”—Renan.

277

What did he do with the money?

Matthew: “Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was
condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver
to the chief priests and elders.... And he cast down the pieces of silver in the
temple and departed” (xxvii, 3–5 ).

Peter: “Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity”
(Acts i, 18 ).

278

The purchase of the potter’s field was in fulfillment of what prophecy?

Matthew: “That which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, ... and gave
them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me” (xxvii, 9, 10 ).

This was not spoken by Jeremiah, but by Zechariah. “And the Lord said
unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them.
And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them to the potter in the house
of the Lord” (xi, 13 ).

It is evident that the account of the betrayal was inspired, not by a historical
fact, but by a desire to “fulfill” a Messianic prophecy. Zechariah did not
predict an event, but his words did suggest a fiction. This is the more
probable from the fact that Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions
the thirty pieces of silver.

The story of Christ’s last visit to Jerusalem and the story of his betrayal
exclude each other. According to the Evangelists he was not arrested for any
offense he had committed during this visit, but for offenses he had
committed prior to this. Yet during this visit he is said to have appeared
openly with his disciples, making a triumphal entry into the city, visiting the
temple and teaching in public. In the face of this the story that the Jews
were obliged to bribe one of his disciples in order to apprehend him is
absurd. One of these stories must be false. Regarding them Lord Amberley
observes: “The representation of the Gospels, that Jesus went on teaching in
public to the very end of his career, and yet that Judas received a bribe for
his betrayal, is self-contradictory” (Life of Jesus, p. 214).

To those who believe the accounts of the betrayal of Jesus to be historical,
the ecclesiastical historian, Neander, in his “Life of Christ,” advances a
suggestion that is worthy of consideration. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas, it
is suggested, was intended as a test of his Messiahship. If Jesus was the
Messiah, Judas reasoned, he could save himself; if he was not the Messiah
he was an impostor and deserved death.

279

What became of Judas?

Matthew: He “went and hanged himself” (xxvii, 5 ).

Peter: “Falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out” (Acts i, 18 ).

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, one of the chief Christian authorities of the
second century, and who wrote before the books of Matthew and Acts were
written, gives the following account of the fate of Judas:

“Judas walked about in the world a great example of impiety; for his body
having swollen so that, on an occasion, when a wagon was moving on its
way, he could not pass it, he was crushed by the chariot and his bowels
gushed out.”

The German commentator, Dr. Hase, attempts to reconcile his suicide, as
related by Matthew, with his death by accident, as related by Peter, by
supposing that he attempted to hang himself, but that the rope broke,
causing him to fall with such force as to disembowel himself. This
harmonist apparently forgets to note that Peter says he fell “headlong,”
which makes it necessary to suppose that he hung himself by the feet.

280

To whom did Peter deliver his speech describing the fate of Judas?

“Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples” (Acts i, 15 ).

Is it not reasonable to suppose that the alleged information conveyed in his
speech was as familiar to the disciples whom he addressed as to himself?
Regarding this De Wette aptly says: “In the composition of this speech the
author has not considered historical decorum.”

281

What did Peter say in regard to the name of the field?

“And it was known unto all the dwellers of Jerusalem; insomuch as that
field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of
blood” (Acts i, 19 ).

Here Peter is represented as interpreting in Greek a Jewish word to his
Jewish brethren.

282

Were there more than one of Jesus’ disciples concerned in his betrayal?

John: There were. “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were [of
his disciples] that believed not, and who should betray him” (vi, 64 ).

283

When the Jewish council met to plan the arrest of Jesus, to what conclusion
did they come?

Matthew and Mark: Not to arrest him on the feast day (Matt. xxvi, 3–5 ;
Mark xiv, 1, 2 ).

Yet this was the very day on which Matthew and Mark declare that he was
arrested.

284

Who arrested him?

Matthew and Mark: “A great multitude ... from the chief priests and elders
of the people” (Matt. xxvi, 47 ; Mark xiv, 43 ).

Luke: “The chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders”
themselves (xxii, 47–52 ).

285

Who does John say was sent to arrest him?

A “band of soldiers and officers” (xviii, 3 , New Ver.).

This contradicts the Synoptics, who declare that it was a mob of civilians.

286

What is said regarding the multitude sent out to apprehend him?

Synoptics: They were armed “with swords and staves” (Matt. xxvi, 47 ;
Mark xiv, 43 ; Luke xxii, 52 ).

Were the disciples armed?

All: They were, or one of them at least (Matt. xxvi, 51 ; Mark xiv, 47 ;
Luke xxii, 38 , 50 ; John xviii, 10 ).

This is incredible, for Jews were never allowed to carry arms on a holy day.

287

How did they go out to capture him?

John: “With lanterns and torches” (xviii, 3 ).

His enemies are represented as believing that his arrest could be secured
only by strategy and stealth. Under these circumstances is it reasonable to
suppose that the chief priests would send out a torchlight procession to

apprehend him? Besides, as it was at the full of the moon, what need had
they of lanterns and torches? Again, lanterns were unknown in Palestine.

288

When the band sent to capture him first came up to him what did they do?

Matthew and Mark: “They laid hands on him and took him” (Matt. xxvi,
47–50 ; Mark xiv, 43–46 ).

John: “They went backward and fell to the ground” (xviii, 3–6 ).

289

What did Peter do when Jesus was arrested?

John: “Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high
priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear” (xviii, 10 ).

Yet no efforts were made to arrest and punish Peter, notwithstanding he was
recognized and pointed out by the kinsman of the wounded man. It may be
urged that Jesus had healed the servant’s ear. This, even if true, would not
have removed the guilt of the militant disciple. Had Peter really committed
the deed, it is not probable that he would have visited the house of the high
priest and remained in the presence of his enemies.

290

When was Jesus bound?

John: When he was arrested (xviii, 12 ).

Matthew and Mark: Not until after his trial before the Sanhedrim when he
was taken to Pilate (Matt. xxvii, 2 ; Mark xv, 1 ).

According to Luke he was not bound.

291

What did they do with Jesus when he was taken?

Matthew: “Led him away to Caiaphas” (xxvi, 57 ).

John: “Led him away to Annas first” (xviii, 13 ).

292

Did he have an examination before his trial?

John: He did (xviii, 13–23 ).

Our laws provide for what is known as a preliminary examination before a
magistrate. This was forbidden by the Jewish law, and his alleged
examination before a priest could not have taken place.

293

Before whom did his preliminary examination take place?

John: Before Annas (xviii, 13–23 ).

The Synoptics state that he was examined and tried before Caiaphas.

294

Repeat John xviii, 24 .

“Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” (Old Ver.).

“Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest” (New Ver.).

This verse follows the account of Jesus’ preliminary examination and shows
clearly that this examination took place before Annas, and that he was not
sent to Caiaphas until its conclusion. The King James translators, in order to
hide the discrepancy, prefixed the word “now” and changed the tense of the
verb, substituting “had sent” for “sent,” so that it might appear that Annas
had sent him to Caiaphas before the examination commenced.

Concerning this corruption of the text, Scott says: “There is no conjunction
‘now,’ and an aorist cannot mark a definite time. If a hiatus is suspected, it
may be indicated by an asterisk; but to insert words and alter the force of a
tense in order to get over a grave historical difficulty is sheer dishonesty”
(Life of Jesus, p. 289, note).

295

Matthew and John state that Caiaphas was high priest at this time. Who
does the author of Acts state was high priest?

“And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as
many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at
Jerusalem” (iv, 6 ).

Luke (iii, 2 ), who is declared to be the author of Acts, says that Annas and
Caiaphas were both high priests.

Criticizing John’s account of the examination before Annas, the author of
“Supernatural Religion” says: “The Synoptics know nothing of the
preliminary examination before Annas, and the reason given by the writer
of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas: ‘for he was
father-in-law to Caiaphas who was first high priest that year,’ is
inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and it probably originated in
a stranger writing of facts and institutions with which he was not well
acquainted, being misled by an error equally committed by the author of the
third Gospel, and of the Acts of the Apostles.... Such statements, erroneous
in themselves and not understood by the author of the fourth Gospel, may
have led to the confusion in the narrative. Annas had previously been high
priest, as we know from Josephus, but nothing is more certain than the fact
that the title was not continued after the office was resigned; and Ishmael,
Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term of office
from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title. The narrative is a
mistake, and such an error could not have been committed by a native of
Palestine, and much less by an acquaintance of the high priest” (p. 660).

296

What is said regarding the tenure of Caiaphas’ office?

John: He was “high priest that year” (xi, 49 ).

John’s language implies that the high priest was appointed annually,
whereas he held his office for life, or until removed. Caiaphas had been
high priest for many years.

297

What had Caiaphas prophesied concerning Jesus?

John: “He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that
nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad” (xi, 51, 52 ).

A high priest did not assume the role of prophet, much less would he have
given utterance to the prophecy ascribed to Caiaphas. The Roman
procurator might have expressed such a sentiment, for according to Roman
law and ethics an individual could be sacrificed for the welfare of the state.
The high priest, on the other hand, could not have uttered such a sentiment,
because it was abhorrent to the Jewish mind. If all Israel could have been
saved, and could have been saved only by the death of one of its innocent
members, that member could not have been put to death, because,
according to Jewish law, it would have made of every Jew concerned in it a

murderer. It was a fundamental principle of the Jewish code that, “No
human life must be abandoned on account of any other life.”

298

Did Jesus have a trial before the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He had (Matt. xxvi, 57–75 ; Mark xiv, 53–72 ; Luke xxii, 54–
71 ).

It was about this time (30 A. D.), that the Sanhedrim ceased to have
jurisdiction over capital offenses. After its jurisdiction ceased Jesus could
not have been tried before it; and before its jurisdiction ceased he would not
have had a subsequent trial before Pilate.

299

Where was his trial held?

Matthew and Mark: At the palace of the high priest.

No trial was ever held at the residence of the high priest. All meetings of the
Sanhedrim were held in the hall adjoining the temple. A trial at any other
place would have been illegal.

300

What was the charge preferred against him?

All: Blasphemy.

Jesus, it was charged, had declared himself to be the son of God. This, if
true, would not have constituted blasphemy. It was no offense against the
law for a man to claim that he was the son of God. All men, and especially
all good men, were recognized as the sons of God. Referring to Christ’s
claim, a Jewish writer says: “No law, no precedent, and no fictitious case in
the Bible or the rabbinical literature, can be cited to make of this expression
a case of blasphemy.” And even if he had been proven guilty of blasphemy,
he could not have been put to death, for blasphemy, at this time, had ceased
to be a capital offense. And is it reasonable to suppose that the Romans
would have condemned a man to death for an offense against a religion in
which they did not themselves believe, but which they regarded as one of
the vilest of superstitions? It may be urged that in his trial before Pilate the
charge was changed to sedition. This charge was not sustained.

301

What is said regarding witnesses?

Matthew and Mark: “Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council,
sought false witnesses against Jesus, to put him to death; but found none;
yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none” (Matt. xxvi,
59, 60 ; Mark xiv, 55, 56 ).

When every step thus far taken by the council had been illegal, why should
it have been so particular in regard to the witnesses? The fact is the
Evangelists were ignorant of Jewish laws. They believed that while the
prosecution of Jesus was unjust it was yet conducted according to the

established rules of Jewish courts. Referring to Mark, Dr. Wise says: “In his
ignorance of Jewish law, he imagined the trial which he described was
lawful among the Jews. He proves this, in the first place, by the very
statement that witnesses were sought and produced. A court convoked and
acting in rebellion to law and custom can be considered only a band of
rebels. What use have such men of witnesses? Being lawless from the
beginning, no legal restraint makes the presence of witnesses necessary....
He certainly thought of an honest, lawful trial, in the legal form; an honest
and legal examination of witnesses, a fair consideration of the testimony,
and after mature reflection the rejection thereof on account of insufficiency”
(Martyrdom of Jesus, pp. 69, 70).

302

What did the so-called false witnesses that appeared against him testify that
he had said?

“I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days”
(Matthew xxvi, 61 ).

“I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I
will build another made without hands” (Mark xiv, 58 ).

303

What had Jesus said?

“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John ii, 19 ).

Passing over the discrepancies of Matthew and Mark, if they have given the
substance of these witnesses’ testimony, then they were not false, but
truthful witnesses; for Jesus, it is seen, had given utterance to such a
declaration. If he referred to the temple of his body, as John affirms, and the
Jews misunderstood him, the fault was his, not theirs.

Josephus gives an account of a so-called prophet who, a few years later,
boasted of his supernatural powers in much the same manner that Jesus is
said to have done:

“There came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said that he
was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along
to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and
at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them
from hence, how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down”
(Antiquities, Book xx, chap. viii, sec. 6).

304

Was he questioned by the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He was. They tried to convict him by his own testimony (Matt.
xxvi, 62–64 ; Mark xiv, 60–63 ; Luke xxii, 66–71 ).

A Jewish court did not question a prisoner. A prisoner could not even plead
guilty.

305

To the priest’s question, “Art thou the Christ?” what answer did he give?

Mark: “Jesus said, I am” (xiv, 61, 62 ).

Luke: “He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe” (xxii, 67 ).

306

When did his trial before the Sanhedrim take place?

Matthew and Mark: During the night. After his arrest, which probably
occurred not later than midnight, they at once “led him away to Caiaphas
the high priest, where ... the chief priests, and elders, and all the council
[Sanhedrim]” had assembled, when his trial immediately began (Matt. xxvi,
57–68 ; Mark xiv, 58–65 ).

Luke: Not until the next morning. During the night he was held in custody
at the house of the high priest. “As soon as it was day, the elders of the
people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into
the council” (xxii, 66 ).

This, according to Luke, was his first and only appearance before the
Sanhedrim. Matthew and Mark, in addition to the night trial mentioned by
them, also mention an adjourned session in the morning corresponding to
the meeting of Luke.

307

Could this trial have been held in the night as stated by Matthew and Mark?

It could not. The Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at night. The
Sanhedrim could not hold a session before 6 a. m. or after 3 p. m. Luke was
seemingly acquainted with this law; Matthew and Mark were not.

308

During what religious festivities was his trial held?

Synoptics: During the feast of the Passover.

It could not have been held during the Passover, for no trials were held by
the Jews during this feast.

309

On what day of the week was it held?

Synoptics: On Friday, the day preceding the Sabbath.

No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day
preceding the Sabbath.

310

How long did this trial last?

All: But a few hours.

The Jewish law required at least two days for a capital trial—one for
prosecution, and one for the defense.

311

Did he have a defender or counselor in the Sanhedrim?

Synoptics: He did not.

According to the Synoptics he had no counsel, and the Sanhedrim were
unanimous in their condemnation of him. This was contrary to Jewish law.
The Sanhedrim might be unanimous in their belief that he was guilty, but it
was the duty of at least one of them to defend him. This was the law: “If
none of the judges defend the culprit, i. e., all pronounce him guilty, having
no defender in the court, the verdict of guilty was invalid and the sentence
of death could not be executed” (Maimonides).

Dr. Geikie admits that the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, as related in
the Gospels, was in nearly every particular contrary to Jewish law. He says:

“The accused was in all cases to be held innocent, till proved guilty. It was
an axiom, that ‘the Sanhedrim was to save, not to destroy life.’ No one
could be tried and condemned in his absence, and when a person accused
was brought before the court, it was the duty of the president, at the outset,
to admonish the witnesses to remember the value of human life, and to take
care that they forgot nothing that would tell in the prisoner’s favor. Nor was
he left undefended; a Baal-Rib, or counsel, was appointed, to see that all
possible was done for his acquittal. Whatever evidence tended to aid him
was to be freely admitted, and no member of the court who had once
spoken in favor of acquittal could afterwards vote for condemnation. The
votes of the youngest of the judges were taken first, that they might not be

influenced by their seniors. In capital charges, it required a majority of at
least two to condemn, and while the verdict of acquittal could be given at
once, that of guilty could only be pronounced the next day. Hence, capital
trials could not begin on the day preceding a Sabbath, or public feast. No
criminal trial could be carried through in the night; the judges who
condemned any one to death had to fast all the day before, and no one could
be executed on the same day on which the sentence was pronounced.” (Life
of Christ, vol. ii, p. 487.)

312

Had Jesus been tried, convicted and executed by the Jews would he have
been crucified?

He would not. Crucifixion was a mode of punishment never employed by
the Jews. Had the Jews executed him he would have been stoned.

It is impliedly stated in the Synoptics, and expressly stated in John, that the
Sanhedrim’s jurisdiction over capital crimes had ceased. “It is not lawful for
us to put any man to death” (xviii, 31 ). The Sanhedrim’s authority ceased
in 30 A. D., and it is generally claimed by Christians that the crucifixion
occurred from one to five years after this time.

313

What does Peter say in regard to the mode of punishment employed in his
execution?

“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a
tree” (Acts v, 30 ).

“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the
Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom ye slew and hanged on a tree” (x, 39 ).

Concerning this, Mrs. Evans says: “With regard to his death, it was said that
the Jews slew him and hanged him on a tree; and again that he was taken
down from the tree; expressions which do not imply crucifixion, but rather
the legal execution for such crimes as the one alleged, that is, stoning to
death and the exposure of the dead body upon a stake, or a tree” (Christ
Myth, p. 79).

314

How was he treated by the Sanhedrim?

Matthew and Mark: “They spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others
smote him with the palms of their hands” (Matt. xxvi, 67 ; Mark xiv, 65 ).

Every Jew, and every other person acquainted with the Jewish history of
that age, knows that this is false. The Sanhedrim was composed of the
wisest and the best men of that race. Superstitious, bigoted and fanatical
some of them doubtless were, but in that august court law and dignity and
decorum reigned.

These accounts of the trial of Christ before the Sanhedrim afford
overwhelming proof that they were not written by apostles nor by residents
of Palestine. They were written by Gentile Christians, or by Jewish converts
living in foreign lands, and presumably the former, for even foreign Jews
must have possessed a better knowledge of Jewish laws and customs than
the Evangelists display.

315

During the trial Peter denied his master. What had Jesus predicted
concerning his denial?

Matthew, Luke and John: “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that
this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Matt. xxvi,
34 ; Luke xxii, 34 ; John xiii, 38 ).

Mark: “And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, even
in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice” (xiv,
30 ).

316

Did Peter deny him three times before the cock crew?

Matthew, Luke and John: He did (Matt. xxvi, 69–75 ; Luke xxii, 54–62 ;
John xviii, 15–27 ).

Mark: He did not; he had denied him but once when the cock crew (xiv, 66–
68 ).

317

Where were they when Jesus foretold Peter’s denial?

Matthew and Mark: At the Mount of Olives (Matt. xxvi, 30–35 ; Mark xiv,
26–30 ).

Luke: In Jerusalem, at supper, before they went out to the Mount of Olives
(xxii, 7–39 ).

318

What did Peter do when he entered the palace?

Luke: “Peter sat down among them” (xxii, 55 ).

John: “Peter stood with them” (xviii, 18 ).

319

When was he first accused of being the friend of Jesus?

John: As he entered the room (xviii, 16, 17 ).

Mark and Luke: As he sat by the fire (Mark xiv, 66, 67 ; Luke xxii, 54–
57 ).

320

When was he accused the second time?

John: In the house as he “stood and warmed himself” (xviii, 25 ).

Matthew: “When he was gone out into the porch” (xxvi, 71 ).

321

By whom was he accused the second time?

Matthew and Mark: By a “maid” (Matt. xxvi, 71 ; Mark xiv, 69 ).

Luke: By a “man” (xxii, 59, 60 ).

322

Who accused him the third time?

Matthew and Mark: “They that stood by” (Matt. xxvi, 73 ; Mark xiv, 70 ).

John: “One of the servants of the high priest” (xviii, 26 ).

323

Was Jesus present when Peter denied him?

Matthew and Mark: He was not.

Luke: He was. “The Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (xxii, 60, 61 ).

324

Where was Jesus next sent for trial?

Luke: To Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, who was attending the Passover at
Jerusalem (xxiii, 6–11 ).

In the matter of trials the Evangelists, as in everything else, have overdone
things. Notwithstanding no trial was ever held during the Passover they
give him four trials in one day, and not finding courts enough in Judea for
the purpose, they import one from Galilee.

There is nothing more improbable than this alleged examination of Jesus by
Herod. Imagine the Governor General of Canada sitting in judgment on a
criminal at Washington, because the criminal is a Canadian, or an Ohio
court holding a session in New York because the prisoner arraigned once
lived in Ohio. The offenses with which Jesus was charged were committed,
not in Herod’s province, Galilee, but in Pilate’s province, Judea.

It is strange that John, who pretends to relate every important event
connected with the trial of Jesus, should omit his trial before Herod.
Concerning this Strauss says: “The conjecture, that it may probably have
appeared to him [John] too unimportant, loses all foundation when it is
considered that John does not scorn to mention the leading away to Annas,
which nevertheless was equally indecisive; and in general, the narrative of
these events in John is, as Schleiermacher himself confesses, so consecutive
that it nowhere presents a break in which such an episode could be inserted.
Hence even Schleiermacher at last takes refuge in the conjecture that
possibly the sending to Herod may have escaped the notice of John, because

it happened on an opposite side to that on which the disciple stood, through
a back door; and that it came to the knowledge of Luke because his
informant had an acquaintance in the household of Herod, as John had in
that of Annas; the former conjecture, however, is figuratively as well as
literally nothing more than a back door; the latter, a fiction which is but the
effort of despair” (Leben Jesu, pp. 764, 765).

325

What was the result of Pilate’s sending Jesus to Herod?

Luke: “And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for
before they were at enmity between themselves” (xxiii, 12 ).

Pilate and Herod did not become friends. To the day of Pilate’s recall they
were enemies. Herod was continually plotting and striving to unite with his
tetrarchy the province of Judea which belonged to his father’s kingdom, and
which his father had promised to give him.

326

Did Jesus’s trial before Pilate take place in the presence of his accusers?

Luke: It did (xxiii, 1–4, 13, 14 ).

John: It did not (xviii, 28 ).

327

Did Pilate go out of the judgment hall to consult with those who were
prosecuting Jesus?

Luke: He did not (xxiii, 1–25 ).

John: He did. “Pilate then went out unto them [the Jews], and said, What
accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If
he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee....
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said
unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou
this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?” (xxiii, 29, 30, 33,
34 .)

The prosecution and the defense are both declared to have returned insolent
answers to the questions of Pilate. The Jewish priests were too wise for this,
and Christians will be loath to admit that their Savior was so indiscreet and
so impolite as to indulge in such insolence.

328

What was the result of his trial before Pilate?

All: Pilate declared him innocent and sentenced him to death.

“And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and
the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that
perverteth the people; and, behold, I, having examined him before you,
have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse
him.... And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.... He
delivered Jesus to their will” (Luke xxiii, 13, 14 , 24, 25 ).

“Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in
him” (John xix, 6 ).

It is impossible to believe that the highest court of a country would
pronounce a prisoner innocent and then condemn him to death. Judicial
murders are sometimes committed, but the murderers do not confess their
guilt.

It is declared that Pilate desired to release Jesus but could not. Who ruled
Judea, Pilate or the Sanhedrim? According to the Evangelists, the Romans
ruled Judea, while the Jews ruled the Romans.

Between the Pilate of the New Testament and the Pilate of history there is
nothing in common. The Pilate of the New Testament is subservient to the
Jews, acceding to their every wish, even to murdering an innocent prisoner.
The Pilate of history is noted for his hatred of the Jews and his cruelties to
them. It was these which provoked his recall.

329

When Pilate could not prevail upon the Jews to allow him to release Jesus,
what did he do?

Matthew: “He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person” (xxvii, 24 ).

Matthew does not appear to realize the absurdity of supposing that a Roman
official would adopt a custom peculiar to a people whom he held in
contempt.

“And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man shall wash
their hands ... and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this
blood” (Deuteronomy xx, 6, 7 ).

330

What indignities were heaped upon Jesus during his trial before Pilate?

John: “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers
platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a
purple robe, and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their
hands. Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I
bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then
came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And
Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!” (xix, 1–5 .)

These indignities Jesus is said to have suffered, not at the hands of a Jewish
mob, but at the hands of a Roman court, from which the Jews had absented
themselves and whose proceedings they could not witness nor directly
influence. Every lawyer knows that for more than two thousand years the
Roman court has been the world’s model for dignity and fairness. That an
innocent and defenseless prisoner was subjected to these insults and
brutalities in a Roman court, presided over by a Roman governor, none but
a slave of superstition can believe.

331

When was he scourged?

Matthew and Mark: Before he was executed. “And when he [Pilate] had
scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified” (Matt. xxvii, 26 ; Mark
xv, 15 ).

John: Before the termination of his trial (xix, 1–16 ).

Scourging was frequently inflicted by the Romans before execution, but
never before the prisoner was convicted and sentenced. The “Bible
Dictionary” concedes the illegal and unusual character of the scourging
mentioned by John. “In our Lord’s case, however, this infliction seems
neither to have been the legal scourging after sentence nor yet the
examination by torture” (Acts xxii, 24 ).

332

What custom is said to have been observed at the Passover?

All: The release of a prisoner by the Roman governor (Matt. xxvii, 15 ;
Mark xv, 6 ; Luke xxiii, 17 ; John xviii, 39 ).

“Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a
prisoner, whom they would.”

There is no historical authority whatever for this alleged custom. It was a
custom that the Roman government in Judea could not with safety adopt.
The Jews were a subject people, waiting and hoping for an opportunity to
throw off the Roman yoke. To release to them “whomsoever they desired”
(Mark xv, 6 ) might be to release a political prisoner whose liberty would
endanger the government itself. This story was probably suggested by a
custom of the Roman emperors who released a prisoner at their birthday
festivals.

333

They demanded and obtained the release of Barrabas. Who was Barrabas?

John: A robber. “Now Barrabas was a robber” (xviii, 40 ).

Mark and Luke: A murderer. “Barrabas (who for a certain sedition made in
the city, and for murder, was cast into prison)” (Luke xxiii, 18, 19 ; Mark
xv, 7 ).

334

By whom was Jesus clad in mockery?

Matthew, Mark and John: By Pilate’s soldiers (Matt. xxvii, 27, 28 ; Mark
xv, 16, 17 ; John xix, 1, 2 ).

Luke: By Herod and his soldiers. “And Herod with his men of war set him
at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe” (xxiii,
11 ).

335

What was the color of the robe they put on him?

Matthew: “They stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe” (xxvii, 28 ).

Mark and John: “They put on him a purple robe” (John xix, 2 ; Mark xv,
17 ).

336

When did this occur?

John: During his trial (xix, 1, 2 , 12–16 ).

Matthew and Mark: After Pilate had delivered him to be crucified (Matt.
xxvii, 26–28 ; Mark xv, 15–17 ).

337

Describe the mocking of Jesus.

Matthew: “Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged
Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor
took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of
soldiers. And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And when
they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in
his right hand; and they bowed the knee before him, saying, Hail, King of
the Jews!” (xxvii, 26–29 .)

The original of this account of the mocking of Jesus is to be found in
Philo’s “Adversus Flaccum,” written more than one hundred years before
the Gospels made their appearance. Herod Agrippa was on his way from
Rome to Palestine to assume the government of that country. When he
stopped at Alexandria his enemies, to annoy him, instituted a mock
coronation, which Philo relates as follows:

“There was a certain poor wretch named Carrabas, who spent all his days
and nights in the roads, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; and
the multitude, having driven him as far as the public gymnasium, and
having set him up there on high, that he might be seen of everybody,
flattening out a papyrus leaf, put it on his head instead of a crown, and
clothed the rest of his body with a common mat in place of a robe, and in
lieu of a sceptre thrust into his hand a reed, which they found lying by the
wayside. And when he had received all the insignia of royalty, and had been
dressed and adorned like a king, young men bearing sticks on their
shoulders stood on each side of him in imitation of guards, while others
came up, some as if to salute him, and others pretending to plead their
causes before him” (Philo’s Works, vol. iv, pp. 68, 69).

338

Who smote Jesus after his trial?

Mark: “The servants did strike him with the palms of their hands” (xiv,
65 ).

John: “One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his
hand” (xviii, 22 ).

The stories of these mockings, revilings, and brutal assaults cannot be
accepted as historical. They are self-evidently false. Were they alleged to
have been committed by an irresponsible Jewish or Roman mob they might
be credited; but when they are declared to have been committed by, or while
in the custody of the highest Jewish and Roman officials they must be
rejected.

339

To whom did Pilate deliver him to be crucified?

Matthew and Mark: To the Roman soldiers. “And when he had scourged
Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor
took Jesus.... And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that
is to say, a place of a skull, ... they crucified him” (Matt. xxvii, 26–35 ;
Mark xv, 15–24 ).

John: He delivered him to the Jews. “And he saith unto the Jews, Behold
your King! But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto
them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no
king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.
And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth
into a place called the place of the skulls, which is called in Hebrew
Golgotha; where they crucified him” (xix, 14–18 ).

Matthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman
soldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the Jews.
Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers; John
declares that he was crucified by the Jews. Were it not that John elsewhere
(xix, 23 ) contradicts himself and states that the soldiers crucified him, the
conclusion would be, after reading John, that he was crucified by the Jews.

Peter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim, he
says: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on
a tree” (Acts v, 30 ).

340

Who was compelled to carry the cross?

Synoptics: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by
name; him they compelled to bear his cross” (Matt. xxvii, 32 ; Mark xv,
21 ; Luke xxiii, 26 ).

John: The cross was borne by Jesus himself (xix, 17 ).

341

Where was Simon when they compelled him to carry the cross?

Mark: “Coming out of the country” (xv, 21 ).

The correct reading of this is, “coming from the field,” i. e., “coming from
his work.” This is improbable as they did not work on the Passover.

342

The Synoptics agree in stating that Simon was compelled to carry the cross.
Is this probable?

It is not. In executions of this kind the criminal was always required to carry
it himself as a mark of disgrace.

343

It is inferred from the Synoptics that the cross was too heavy for Jesus to
bear, and Christian writings and paintings represent him bending with
fatigue beneath the burden of the entire cross. What was the burden he was
required to carry?

Simply the patibulum, or cross piece, which was not heavy. The upright
portion of the cross was a permanent fixture.

344

On his way to execution he made a speech to the women of Jerusalem who
bewailed his fate. Alluding, as is alleged, to the coming destruction of
Jerusalem, what did he declare they would say?

“To the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us” (Luke xxiii, 30 ).

Luke attempts to put into the mouth of Jesus a quotation from Hosea, but
his memory was defective. What the prophet said was as follows:

“To the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us” (Hosea x, 8 ).

Renan pronounces this speech spurious. He says: “The speech to the
women of Jerusalem could scarcely have been conceived except after the
siege of the year 70.”

345

Where was he crucified?

Matthew and Mark: At “a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a
skull” (Matt. xxvii, 33 ; Mark xv, 22 ).

Luke: At Calvary (xxiii, 33 ).

Calvary, like Golgotha, means a place of skulls in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
The explanation given by Christian commentators is that “it was a spot
where executions ordinarily took place, and therefore abounded in skulls.”
Fleetwood says it “was called Golgotha, or Place of Skulls, from the
criminals’ bones which lay scattered there” (Life of Christ, p. 416). Where
Jewish customs prevailed—and it is admitted that they did prevail in
Jerusalem and Judea at this time, and had for hundreds of years—a human
skull or bone was not allowed to be exposed for even a moment.

346

What was the inscription on the cross?

Mark: “The King of the Jews” (xv, 26 ).

Luke: “This is the King of the Jews” (xxiii, 38 ).

Matthew: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (xxvii, 37 ).

John: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (xix, 19 ).

There was placed on the cross a certain inscription. According to Luke and
John it appeared in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. Four divinely inspired
historians attempt to report in Greek the exact words of this inscription. Yet
no two of their reports agree.

347

Did the name of Jesus appear on the cross?

Matthew and John: It did.

Mark and Luke: It did not.

348

Did the word “Nazareth” appear in the inscription?

John: It did.

Synoptics: It did not.

349

What did they offer him to drink before crucifying him?

Matthew: “Vinegar mingled with gall” (xxvii, 34 ).

Mark: “Wine mingled with myrrh” (xv, 23 ).

Luke: “Vinegar” alone (xxiii, 36 ).

The draughts mentioned by Matthew and Mark refer to a Jewish mixture
intended to produce stupefaction and lessen pain. Had the Romans crucified
him it is not probable that they would have observed this Jewish custom.

350

How was he fastened on the cross?

Luke and John: His hands and feet were nailed to it (Luke xxiv, 39 ; John
xx, 25, 27 ).

The Evangelists do not say that he was nailed to the cross; but it has been
inferred from the texts mentioned in Luke and John that he was. In
crucifixion the victim was usually bound to the cross. Nails were sometimes
driven through the hands, but never through the feet. The allusions to the
supposed wounds on his hands and feet were evidently inserted in the
accounts for the purpose of establishing his identity after the resurrection.
Great prominence has been given them by Christians in order to make
Christ’s crucifixion appear especially cruel and create sympathy for him.

351

At what hour of the day was he crucified?

Mark: “It was the third hour [nine o’clock in the morning]” (xv, 25 ).

Luke: “It was about the sixth hour [noon]” (xxiii, 44 ).

John: At the sixth hour he had not been sentenced and delivered to the
executioners; hence he was not crucified until the afternoon (xix, 14–16 ).

Dr. Geikie admits that three hours may have elapsed between the
termination of his trial and his crucifixion. Hence, according to John, the

crucifixion may have occurred as late as three o’clock in the afternoon.

It has been attempted to explain the discrepancy between Mark and John by
supposing that John used a different method of reckoning time. Concerning
this, Prof. Sanday, one of England’s highest orthodox authorities, says:
“The writer of this was at one time inclined to look with favor on these
attempts. If the premise could be proved, the data would work out
satisfactorily.... But it must definitely be said that the major premise cannot
be proved, and that the attempt to reconcile the two statements on this basis
breaks down.”

352

How did the soldiers divide the garments?

Matthew: “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots;
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my
garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots” (xxvii,
35 ).

John: “Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments,
and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat
was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said, therefore,
among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be;
that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment
among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots” (xix, 23, 24 ).

According to Matthew they cast lots for all the garments; according to John
they cast lots for the coat alone. John here makes the same error in regard to
the garments that Matthew does in regard to the ass on which Jesus made
his triumphal entry. In the verse cited from Psalms garments and vesture are
the same thing—the clothing of the writer. One of the chief characteristics

of Hebrew poetry, or much of it at least, is that each successive thought is
stated twice, but in different words.

353

Who were crucified with Jesus?

Mark and Matthew: “And with him they crucify two thieves” (Mark xv,
27 ; Matt. xxvii, 38 ).

Thieves were not crucified. Crucifixion, or death in any form, for theft was
contrary to both Jewish and Roman law. Theft was not a capital offense.

354

His crucifixion between two thieves fulfilled what prophecy?

Mark: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And he shall be
numbered with the transgressors” (xv, 28 ).

“The same thing might be said of the thieves.”—Paine.

This passage is not to be found in the earlier manuscripts of Mark, and
Westcott declares it to be an interpolation.

355

How long did Jesus survive after being placed upon the cross?

Luke: About three hours (xxiii, 44 ).

A Jamaica negro slave, crucified in 1760, lived two hundred and ten hours.

Kitto says: “We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest period at
which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult” (Biblical
Cyclopedia, Art. Crucifixion).

356

What were his last words?

Matthew: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?” (xxvii, 46 ).

Mark: “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, which is, being interpreted, My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (xv, 34 .)

Luke: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (xxiii, 46 ).

John: “It is finished” (xix, 30 ).

With the Four Gospels before them, Christians do not know what his last
words were. The two most popular English Lives of Christ are those of Dr.
Farrar and Dr. Geikie. These writers were contemporaries and friends, and
both were adherents of the same church. Both, with these Gospels for their
authorities, attempt to portray the closing scene. I quote from each:

Dr. Farrar: “And now the end was come. Once more, in the words of the
sweet Psalmist of Israel, but adding to them that title of trustful love which,
through Him, is permitted to the use of all mankind, ‘Father,’ he said, ‘into

Thy hands I commend my spirit.’ Then with one more great effort he
uttered the last cry—the one victorious word, ‘It is finished.’”

Dr. Geikie: “A moment more, and all was over. The cloud had passed as
suddenly as it rose. Far and wide, over the vanquished throngs of his
enemies, with a loud voice, as if uttering his shout of eternal victory before
entering into his glory, he cried, ‘It is finished!’ Then, more gently, came the
words, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.’”

357

In what language were his last words uttered?

Matthew: In Hebrew.

Mark: In Aramaic and Hebrew.

The language spoken by Jesus and by the people of Palestine at this time
was the Aramaic. Mark attempts to give the words of Jesus in this language.
But while the first two words are Aramaic, the last two are Hebrew. The
words Mark attempts to give are “Elohi, Elohi, metul mah shabaktani?”
This Gospel was written by one ignorant of the language of Palestine.

358

Matthew interprets the Hebrew words quoted by him to mean, “My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Is this correct?

It is not. The words mean, “My God, my God, why hast thou sacrificed
me?”

The Gospel of Matthew, it is claimed, originally appeared in Hebrew. But
this shows that the author of Matthew did not understand the Hebrew
language.

359

What are the words given by Matthew and Mark?

The first words of the 22d Psalm. In the words of Farrar, “He borrowed
from David’s utter agony the expression of his own.”

Is it probable that a man in the agonies of a terrible death would devote his
expiring breath to a recital of Hebrew poetry? When even the dying words
of this Christ are borrowed, is it not evident that the whole story of his life
is fabulous?

The accounts of the crucifixion given by the Evangelists are to a large
extent reproductions of the 22d Psalm, even to the language itself, the
poetical allusions of the psalmist being transformed into alleged historical
facts. The devout Christian who is familiar with this Passion Psalm sees in
the Evangelists’ account of the crucifixion a wonderful fulfillment of
prophecy. But the critic sees merely the borrowed embellishments of a
legend.

360

What expression did his words, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” provoke?

Matthew: “Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This
man calleth for Elias” (xxvii, 47 ).

This is additional proof of Matthew’s ignorance of Hebrew. He supposes a
similarity of sound between the two words, whereas they were utterly
unlike in pronunciation. Eli was pronounced Ali (long a), while Elias was
pronounced Eleeyahu. But even had they been so much alike in sound that
one might have been mistaken for the other, as Matthew supposes, the
alleged incident is disproved by the fact that the Jews were not allowed to
attend the execution, while to the Romans the words were meaningless.

361

Who was it bade them see whether Elias would come to his rescue?

Mark: The one who gave him the sponge filled with vinegar. “And one ran
and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to
drink, saying, Let alone, let us see whether Elias will come to take him
down” (xv, 36 ).

Matthew: It was not this person, but those who were with him. “And
straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge and filled it with vinegar,
and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see
whether Elias will come to save him” (xxvii, 48, 49 ).

In regard to these alleged last words of Jesus, Dr. Hooykaas says: “It seems
to us far more probable that these words of the Messianic passion-psalm
were put into the mouth of Jesus by tradition than that he really uttered
them. The sequel, too, throws great suspicion on the report; for the Jews
were not allowed to approach the cross, and what did the Roman soldiers
know about Elijah? Besides, if the Jews had really heard him cry “Eli!” or
“Eloi!” they would hardly have mistaken the words of the twenty-second
Psalm for a cry to the precursor of the Messianic kingdom—a mistake upon

which their raillery is made to depend. We must, therefore, put aside these
words, as in all probability unhistorical” (Bible for Learners, vol. iii, p.
454).

362

Did the thieves between whom he was crucified both revile him?

Matthew and Mark: They did. “And they that were crucified with him
reviled him” (Mark xv, 32 ; Matt. xxvii, 44 ).

Luke: They did not; but one reviled him. “And one of the malefactors which
were hanged railed on him.... But the other answering rebuked him, saying,
Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” (xxiii,
39, 40 .)

If these men were crucified with Jesus, as claimed, neither reviled him.
Reason rejects the statement that a dying man, suffering unutterable agony,
reviled a fellow sufferer.

363

What request did the penitent thief make of Jesus?

Luke: “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into
thy kingdom” (xxiii, 42 ).

Here the dying thief is represented as being familiar with a subject which
the disciples themselves did not at this time comprehend.

364

What did Jesus say to the thief?

“Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii, 43 ).

Instead of going to the Christian Heaven above, they went to the Jewish-
Pagan Sheol (Hell) below. Did Jesus recant on the cross? Did he renounce
the Kingdom of God when God deserted him? Concerning this remarkable
passage, Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” says:

“The Rabbis in the time of our Savior taught there was a region of the world
of the dead, of Sheol, in the heart of the earth. Gehenna was on one side,
with its flames and torments; Paradise on the other, the intermediate home
of the blessed.... It is significant, indeed, that the word ‘paradise’ nowhere
occurs in the public teaching of our Lord, or in his intercourse with his
disciples. Connected as it had been with the thoughts of a sensuous
happiness, it was not the fittest nor the best word for those whom he was
training to rise out of sensuous thoughts to the higher regions of the
spiritual life. For them, accordingly, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom
of God, are the words most dwelt on. With the thief dying on the cross the
case was different. We can assume nothing in the robber-outlaw but the
most rudimentary forms of the popular belief. The answer to his prayer
gave him what he needed most, the assurance of immediate rest and peace.”

The explanation of the apologist is as lame as the story of the Evangelist.
Did Jesus go to Hell with the thief because the thief was unfit to go to
Heaven with him? This apologist says that Jesus used these words—gave
expression to a false doctrine—because the thief was incapable of
comprehending the true doctrine. But this conflicts with the alleged words
of the thief himself which show that he did comprehend the nature of the

kingdom of Heaven. It was this, and not the peace of the grave, for which
he prayed.

365

What were the centurion’s words?

Luke: “Certainly this was a righteous man” (xxiii, 47 ).

Matthew: “Truly this was the Son of God” (xxvii, 54 ).

We have here the anomaly of a Roman officer—a Pagan—entertaining a
Jewish doctrine of a Messiah, and accepting the Christian claim that Jesus
was the Messiah. If this be true it is strange that he permitted his soldiers to
insult and abuse Jesus.

366

After Jesus expired what did one of the soldiers do?

John: “One of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side” (xix, 34 ).

It is remarkable that the Synoptics, who pretend to relate every important
incident connected with the crucifixion, make no mention of the spear
thrust.

367

What is said to have issued from the wound?

John: “And forthwith came there out blood and water” (xix, 34 ).

According to a well known physiological fact, if Jesus was still alive or had
but recently expired, not blood and water, but blood alone would have
flowed from the wound. If he was dead, and it is stated that he was, then
neither blood nor water would have flowed from it. When blood is drawn
from a living body it becomes separated into two parts, a thick substance
known as febrine, and a watery fluid known as serum. John was familiar
with this fact and supposed that this also took place in a corpse, which is
not the case.

Dr. Cabanes, a noted physician of Paris, writes as follows regarding the
crucifixion of Jesus:

“It appears that crucifixion alone could not have produced the death of
Jesus, and in reference to the wounds produced by the nails, these wounds
being the result of crushing, the hemorrhage was small. A burning fever
might possibly occur which would be manifested by an intense thirst, but
the flow of blood could not be sufficient to cause death. Death in this case is
preceded by a comatose condition which would be inconsistent with the cry
uttered in a loud voice by Jesus shortly before his last breath. All the
commentators of the gospels further agree that Jesus did not remain more
than three to six hours on the cross, and death cannot be produced by an
exposure of this duration to this mode of torture.

“The generally accepted version of the lance wound received by Jesus is
that the blow was struck on the left side and that there flowed from the
wound water mingled with blood. It has been correctly remarked that blood
does not flow from a corpse, and therefore if blood followed the lance
stroke, Jesus must have been alive; further, in order that the blow might
have killed the dying man, it must have injured a vital organ. It must be
observed that a lance directed upward and from right to left could not reach

the right-hand cavities of the heart without first opening the peritoneal
cavity, traversing the liver, the pericardium and perhaps the pleura. We must
therefore ask how the few hundred grams of blood which a right ventricle
could contain, could penetrate to the exterior of the body after such a great
wound. Also with those who die slowly there is found a distended heart in
which the blood has very rapidly coagulated, and it must follow that if a
flood of the liquid appeared on the side of Jesus it could not have come
from the heart. With regard to the vena cava, its situation is too far back to
have allowed it to be touched by the lance. If the wound had been in the
stomach a lesion of the digestive tube would have been disclosed by an
ejection of blood mingled with alimentary matter, either from the mouth or
the opening of the wound, or at least by a discharge of blood into the
abdominal cavity. Had the liver been touched the symptoms of an internal
hemorrhage would have been observed, as in the case of President Carnot,
in whose case the blow of the poignard, directed downward, perforated the
liver and the portal vein, inducing a state of coma, whereas Jesus, we have
been told, cried out with a loud voice. We thus see that death was not due to
the lance wound or to the torture of crucifixion, as so often stated.”

368

Was Christ’s suffering foretold by the prophets?

Peter: “But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all
his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts iii, 18 ).

God had not showed by the mouth of all his prophets, nor by the mouth of
even one of his prophets, that Christ should suffer. The prophets know
nothing of a suffering Messiah. There is not a text in the Old Testament
referring to such a Messiah. The passages relating to suffering cited by the
Evangelists and applied to Christ have no reference whatever to a Messiah.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “That the Jews in the time of Christ

believed in a suffering and atoning Messiah is, to say the least, unproved
and highly improbable.”

369

What marvelous events occurred at the time of the crucifixion?

Matthew: “There was darkness over all the land” (xxvii, 45 ). “The veil of
the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose” (51, 52 ).

Mark and Luke: “There was darkness over the whole land” (Mark xv, 33 ).
“And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom”
(38 ).

Mark and Luke know nothing of two of the important events related by
Matthew; John is ignorant of all of them. Had these events really happened,
the naturalists and chroniclers of that age would have recorded them. As
they make no mention of them, we know that they did not occur.

If we accept the claims of their followers, nearly all the gods and heroes of
antiquity expired amid the convulsions of Nature. The soul of Romulus
went out amid the battling of her elements; “the sun was darkened and the
sky rained fire and ashes” when the Hindu Krishna left his saddened
followers; “the earth shook, the rocks were rent, the graves opened, and in a
storm which threatened the dissolution of the universe,” Prometheus closed
his earthly career; a pall of darkness settled over Egypt when her Osiris
died; the death of Alexander was succeeded by six hours of preternatural
gloom; and—

“Ere the mighty Julius fell,
The grave stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead

Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets.”

370

How long did the darkness last?

Synoptics: From the sixth to the ninth hour (Matt. xxvii, 45 ; Mark xv,
33 ; Luke xxiii, 44 ).

According to Matthew and Luke this darkness lasted from the time that he
was suspended upon the cross until he died. Yet his executioners are
ignorant of it. Luke says: “His acquaintances, and the women that followed
him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things [the crucifixion]”
(xxiii, 49 ), which they could not have done had this darkness really
occurred.

If this darkness occurred, and began at the sixth hour, as stated by the
Synoptics, then, according to John, the conclusion of the trial, the
sentencing of Jesus, the preparations for his execution, and the journey to
Golgotha, all took place during the darkness, a conclusion which the nature
of the narrative utterly precludes.

Christian apologists have cited Phlegon who notices an eclipse which
occurred about this time. But there is a variance of at least six years in
regard to the time that Jesus was crucified. Besides an eclipse could not
have occurred within two weeks of a Passover, on the occurrence of which
he is declared to have been executed. Farrar says: “It could have been no
darkness of any natural eclipse, for the Paschal moon was at the full” (Life
of Christ, p. 505). Geikie says: “It is impossible to explain the origin of this
darkness. The Passover moon was then at the full, so that it could not have
been an eclipse. The earlier fathers, relying on a notice of an eclipse that
seemed to coincide in time, though it really did not, fancied that the
darkness was caused by it, but incorrectly” (Life of Christ, Vol. ii, p. 624,

Notes). “The celebrated passage of Phlegon,” says Gibbon, “is now wisely
abandoned” (Rome, Vol. i, p. 589, Note).

371

Was the veil of the temple rent, as our Gospel of Matthew declares?

The Gospel of Matthew, it is affirmed, originally appeared in Hebrew, St.
Jerome, who had this original version, says: “In that Gospel which is
written in Hebrew letters, we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent,
but that a lintel (or beam) of a prodigious size fell down.”

Commenting on this alleged prodigy, the rending of the veil, Strauss says:
“Now the object of the divine Providence in effecting such a miracle could
only have been this: to produce in the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus a
deep impression of the importance of his death, and to furnish the first
promulgators of the gospel with a fact to which they might appeal in
support of their cause. But, as Schleiermacher has shown, nowhere else in
the New Testament, either in the apostolic epistles or in Acts, or even in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the subject of which it could
scarcely fail to be suggested, is this event mentioned: on the contrary, with
the exception of this bare Synoptical notice, every trace of it is lost; which
could scarcely have been the case if it had really formed a ground of
apostolical argument. Thus the divine purpose in ordaining this miracle
must have totally failed, or, since this is inconceivable, it cannot have been
ordained for this object—in other words, since neither any other object of
the miracle, nor yet a mode in which the event might happen naturally can
be discovered, it cannot have happened at all” (Leben Jesu, p. 789).

372

Matthew declares that the dead arose on the day of the crucifixion. When
did they come out of their graves?

Not until after Christ’s resurrection, which did not occur until the following
week. “And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of
the graves after his resurrection” (Matt. xxvii, 52, 53 ).

“They were polite enough to sit in their open graves and wait for Christ to
rise first.”—Ingersoll.

373

From what source was Matthew’s story regarding these marvelous events
derived?

From Zechariah: “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of
Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the East, and the Mount of Olives
shall cleave in the midst thereof ... and half of the mountain shall remove
toward the North, and half of it toward the South.... Ye shall flee, like as ye
fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah King of Judah; and
the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. And it shall come
to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear” (xiv, 4–6 ).

Concerning this Dr. Wise says: “God who comes, according to Zachariah,
to fight for Jerusalem, will stand upon Mount Olivet. Therefore, Jesus,
during his fight against Pharisees, Sadducees and priests, had to make his
principal home on Mount Olivet. But he could not split the mountain, as
Zachariah imagined God would, and move one part North and the other
South; therefore, the curtain of the temple had to be torn in twain when
Jesus died, although none has ever mentioned the fact. The curtain was
there some thirty-five years after the death of Jesus; had it been torn,

somebody must have noticed it. The earthquake mentioned by Zachariah, of
course, was borrowed to embellish Calvary.... Because Zachariah states
God coming to Jerusalem, ‘And the Lord my God cometh, all the saints
with thee,’ therefore the saints and not the sinners had to resurrect and visit
the city on that particular day. But in the fertile imagination of Zachariah,
the day of that terrible combat must be dark.... This darkness was
transported over to Calvary to embellish the scene.... So these miracles were
not wrought, but the entire outer embellishment of Calvary is taken from
Zachariah; not because it was believed this prophecy referred to Jesus, but
simply because the evangelical writers were incompetent to invent original
poetry” (Martyrdom of Jesus, p. 116).

374

What request did the Jews make of Pilate concerning Jesus and the
malefactors?

John: They “besought Pilate that their legs might be broken” (xix, 31 ).

This punishment, known as crurifragium, was a distinct mode of execution
and was never united with crucifixion. Crucifixion, we have seen, was not
employed to punish theft. Neither was crurifragium. Yet we are asked to
believe that both modes of execution, two of the cruelest forms of
punishment, were combined to punish these offenders. The Synoptics do
not mention this punishment.

375

When the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, why did they spare those of
Jesus?

John: “That the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be
broken” (xix, 36 ).

This refers to Exodus xii, 46 , and relates to the disposition to be made of
the lamb used at the Passover. Nearly the entire chapter from which John
quotes is devoted to this subject. Among other things it states that “They
shall eat the flesh in that night, ... his head with his legs, and with the
purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning”
(8–10 ). If a part of this prophecy was fulfilled, may not all of it have been
fulfilled? And if all of it was fulfilled, will not this account for the empty
sepulchre?

Regarding the failure of the soldiers to break the legs of Jesus, as ordered,
“Supernatural Religion” says: “An order having been given to the Roman
soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews, to break the legs of the
crucified, we are asked to believe that they did not execute it in the case of
Jesus. It is not reasonable to suppose, however, that Roman soldiers either
were in the habit of disregarding their orders, or could have any motive for
doing so in this case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment
for disobedience inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw
that Jesus was already dead, and, therefore, that it was not necessary to
break his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this way; they
are disciplined to obey” (p. 993).

376

What demand was made by the Jews on the evening of the crucifixion?

John: That their bodies be taken down from the cross (xix, 31 ).

John was evidently familiar with the Mosaic law (Deut. xxi, 22, 23 )
which, in cases of hanging, enjoined the burial of the body on the day of
execution, but seemingly ignorant of the Roman law under which they were
executed, which, in cases of crucifixion, prohibited burial, requiring the
body to remain upon the cross until decayed, or birds and beasts had
devoured it. The Jews esteemed it sinful to allow a criminal to “remain all
night upon the tree;” but the Jewish law was inapplicable to the Roman
mode of punishment which presupposed that the criminal would remain on
the cross several days and nights before death ensued.

377

What additional reason was there for having the bodies taken down?

Mark: “Because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath”
(xv, 42 ).

The Sabbath began at sunset on the day that he is declared to have been
crucified. The Jewish law would not permit his body, whether dead or alive,
to be exposed on the Sabbath. Crucifixion, as we have seen, was a lingering
death; several days usually elapsing before the victim expired. Now, is it
reasonable to suppose that the Jews would demand, as claimed, a
punishment lasting several days when they knew that he must be taken
down from the cross in a few hours?

378

What did Pilate do when Joseph solicited the body of Jesus?

Mark: “Pilate marveled if he were already dead” (xv, 44 ).

Why should Pilate marvel if he were already dead when previous to this,
according to John (xix, 31–33 ), he had, at the request of the Jews, ordered
his soldiers to dispatch him if alive and take his body away?

379

Were the disciples present at the crucifixion?

John: They were, or one, at least (xix, 26 ).

According to the Synoptics, all were absent; all had forsaken their Master,
all had fled. The Twelve Apostles at this time, unless Judas had already
hung himself, as Matthew declares, numbered one traitor and eleven
cowards.

380

What women followed Jesus and witnessed his execution?

Matthew and Mark: Women of Galilee (Matt. xxvii, 55 ; Mark xv, 40,
41 ).

Luke: “Daughters of Jerusalem,” that is, women of Judea (xxiii, 28 ).